reforming teaching practice in indonesia - home - … teaching practice in indonesia a case study of...
TRANSCRIPT
Reforming teaching
practice in Indonesia A case study of the implementation of active
learning in primary schools in North Maluku
Sopantini
M.Ed. Deakin University
Submitted in fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Education
University of Tasmania
September 2014
1
Declaration of Originality
This thesis contains no material which has been accepted for a degree or diploma by the
University or any other institution, except by way of background information and duly
acknowledged in the thesis, and to the best of my knowledge and belief no material previously
published or written by another person except where due acknowledgement is made in the text of
the thesis, nor does the thesis contain any material that infringes copyright.
Authority of Access
This thesis may be made available for loan and limited copying and communication in accordance
with the Copyright Act 1968.
Statement of Ethical Conduct
The research associated with this thesis abides by the international and Australian codes on
human and animal experimentation, the guidelines by the Australian Government's Office of the
Gene Technology Regulator and the rulings of the Safety, Ethics and Institutional Biosafety
Committees of the University
2
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank Professor John Williamson, Dr. Donna Satterthwait, and Professor Barbara
Hatley for their guidance and patience throughout this journey. I am particularly grateful to my
husband, Mark, whose unending support sustained me to completion of this thesis. To Rory and
Harry, I am a grateful and hopeful mother who is proud to say that the thesis is finally done and
that we can spend more time to do things together. Finally I would like to thank all the teachers,
principals, and supervisors in North Maluku and all other participants of this study for their
willingness to participate without which this study would not have been possible.
3
Abstract
This thesis describes a study of the implementation of Indonesia‘s national policy on active
learning. Active learning was first introduced in Indonesia in the 1970s. Since then four different
national curricula have rearticulated the policy, and numerous donor and government funded
projects have attempted to support implementation. Notwithstanding all of this effort at reform,
the gap between policy and practice remains wide. Most schools and classrooms remain little
changed. A wide range of teaching practices is employed by Indonesia‘s more than three million
teachers and across its 260,000 schools. However, with a few exceptions, a casual look in any one
of these schools will reveal poor conditions, few books or teaching aids, and traditional ‗chalk-
and-talk‘ teaching methods.
The study addresses two questions: (1) How do teachers translate active learning methodology in
the classroom? (2) What factors impede the implementation of active learning?
A mixed-method, qualitative, case study approach was adopted to answer these questions. The
case selected was a group of teachers, schools and school clusters in three districts in the remote
eastern Indonesian province of North Maluku. The data collection phase of the study took place in
2007. Data analysis was conducted in the following years. Four main data gathering methods
were employed: (1) document analysis, (2) survey questionnaire, (3) semi-structured interview
and informal discussions, (4) field visits to schools and class observation.
The study is underpinned by a conceptual framework, which developes the theory of House
(1979), and subsequently House and McQuillan (1998), who proposed three perspectives for the
4
analysis of education reform. This study argues that each of three perspectives is necessary to an
understanding of educational reform: the technical, the political and the cultural.
The study found that implementation of the policy of active learning has essentially failed in this
case, due to a combination of technical, political and cultural factors and the interaction between
these three. Is is argued that the dominance of the technical perspective in previous studies and in
the policy process is, in part, a result of policy borrowing, whereby technical innovations are
borrowed from the West and, with the support of international donors, are implemented in
Indonesia – without the cultural context necessary for successful implementation. This thesis thus
further develops the theory by taking House and McQuillan‘s (1998) three perspectives,
expanding the meaning to include higher level political perspectives and broader cultural and
technical perspectives, and applying this conceptual framework in a new setting, that of
Indonesia, a developing nation.
This study concludes with a number of recommendations for policy makers and researchers. The
key recommendation is that Indonesian policy on classroom practice should be made in a way that
is more cognizant of the technical, political and cultural realities. What is required is a review of
current policy and implementation expectations, and an adjustment of the policy to fit with
Indonesian realities. These realities, it should be stressed, are not uniform and vary according to
the local context. This recommendation is significant, not only for Indonesia, which spends
substantial amounts of money every year on reform programs which fail repeatedly due to lack of
awareness of the need to address cultural, technical and political factors. It also offers a warning
to other developing nations and for the international donors which support them.
5
Contents
Glossary of Terms ....................................................................................................................................... 11 Chapter 1: Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 15
Introduction .............................................................................................................................................. 16
Basic education in Indonesia..................................................................................................................... 16
Indonesia‘s basic education system ........................................................................................ 18 Indonesia‘s basic education policy framework....................................................................... 21 Challenges in policy implementation ...................................................................................... 24
Active learning in Indonesia ...................................................................................................................... 29
The development of an active learning policy ........................................................................ 29 Active learning in policy documents ....................................................................................... 34
Implementation of active learning; government reports ........................................................ 40 Lost in translation: the problem of policy borrowing ............................................................. 42
The case study context ............................................................................................................................. 48
The Indonesian political and cultural context ........................................................................ 48
North Maluku .......................................................................................................................... 57 The aims of the research........................................................................................................................... 63
The research questions ............................................................................................................................. 65
The research approach ............................................................................................................................. 66
Conclusion ................................................................................................................................................. 67
Chapter 2: Literature Review .................................................................................................................... 69 Introduction .............................................................................................................................................. 70
A conceptual framework: Three perspectives of change ......................................................................... 73
Defining active learning ............................................................................................................................ 76
The technical perspective ......................................................................................................................... 82
Views of teaching and the status of teachers .......................................................................... 84 The impact of professional development on teachers ............................................................. 88 The impact of professional development on student learning outcomes ................................ 89
The impact of professional development on reform ................................................................ 91 The characteristics of effective professional development ..................................................... 96
The political perspective ........................................................................................................................... 97
Educational change and policy development ......................................................................... 99 Policy transfer ....................................................................................................................... 104 Development, international aid and globalization ............................................................... 104
Policy implementation .......................................................................................................... 108 The Indonesian experience ................................................................................................... 113
The cultural perspective ......................................................................................................................... 117
The significance of culture in policy transfer ....................................................................... 118 The influence of societal culture ........................................................................................... 127
Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................... 132
Chapter 3: Methodology........................................................................................................................... 135 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 136
6
Research approach ................................................................................................................................. 138
Ethics approval, protocols and entry to the field ................................................................................... 146
Research method and design: case study ............................................................................................... 147
Sampling .................................................................................................................................................. 149
Selecting the districts and school clusters ............................................................................ 150 Selecting the schools ............................................................................................................. 152 The survey sample ................................................................................................................. 155
Selecting individuals for interview........................................................................................ 156 Data collection ........................................................................................................................................ 157
Document Analysis................................................................................................................ 158 Survey questionnaire ............................................................................................................. 160
Observations ......................................................................................................................... 162 Interviews .............................................................................................................................. 165
Data analysis ........................................................................................................................................... 169
Validity, trustworthiness, and triangulation ........................................................................................... 172
Limitations of the study .......................................................................................................................... 174
Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................... 175
Chapter 4: Results .................................................................................................................................... 177 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 178
Summary of results ................................................................................................................................. 179
School and classroom observations ........................................................................................................ 182
School observations .............................................................................................................. 182
Lesson observations .............................................................................................................. 194 The school cluster system and school supervision ................................................................................. 214
Management of teacher clusters (KKG) ............................................................................... 217 Effectiveness of teacher clusters (KKG) ............................................................................... 232
Teacher Survey ........................................................................................................................................ 237
Understandings about children and how they learn ............................................................. 238 Curriculum implementation .................................................................................................. 241
Educational leadership, obstacles and support for teacher improvement ........................... 243 Interviews................................................................................................................................................ 247
Active learning: teachers‘ source of information ................................................................. 248 Active learning: teachers‘ understanding and concerns ...................................................... 250
Teacher supervision .............................................................................................................. 253 Teacher in-service training ................................................................................................... 255 Community ............................................................................................................................ 263 Financial mismanagement .................................................................................................... 265
Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................... 268
How do teachers translate active learning methodology in the classroom? ........................ 269 What factors impede the implementation of active learning? .............................................. 270 Summary ............................................................................................................................... 271
Chapter 5: Discussion ............................................................................................................................... 273 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 274
The technical perspective ....................................................................................................................... 277
The political perspective ......................................................................................................................... 283
7
The cultural perspective ......................................................................................................................... 288
The case of Sekolah Jaya ......................................................................................................................... 291
Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................... 299
Chapter 6: Conclusions ............................................................................................................................ 301 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 302
Responding to the research questions ................................................................................................... 303
Teachers and teachers’ in-service training ............................................................................................. 305
Teachers’ supervision ............................................................................................................................. 306
Policy alignment ...................................................................................................................................... 306
Community factors ................................................................................................................................. 307
Recommendations .................................................................................................................................. 309
Recommendations for further research ................................................................................. 310 Recommendations for policy and practice ............................................................................ 315
Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................... 322
References .................................................................................................................................................. 324
Appendix 1: Ethics Approval...................................................................................................................... 344 Appendix 2: Invitation letter for study participants .................................................................................... 346 Appendix 3: Information sheet for study participants ................................................................................ 348 Appendix 4: Consent form for study participants ....................................................................................... 351 Appendix 5: Notification letter sent to Indonesian Government bodies ..................................................... 353 Appendix 6: Teacher Survey Instrument .................................................................................................... 355 Appendix 7: Lesson Observation Proforma ................................................................................................ 365 Appendix 8: Brief Interview Schedule ....................................................................................................... 374 Appendix 9: Exploratory, Open-Ended Interview Schedule ...................................................................... 376 Appendix 10: Sample Interview Transcript (including translation of responses into English) .................. 379 Appendix 11: Sample Coded Lesson Observation Transcript .................................................................... 384 Appendix 12: Teacher survey items and number of responses for each ..................................................... 398 Appendix 13: Sample Translated Lesson Observation Transcript .............................................................. 399
8
Figures
Figure 1.1: National Policy Framework for Basic Education Reform since 2000 .......................................... 22 Figure 1.2: Creativity at Work ....................................................................................................................... 46 Figure 1.3: Map of North Maluku & Maluku showing Case Study Sites ....................................................... 60 Figure 1.4: Map of North Maluku showing District Divisions ....................................................................... 61 Figure 1.5: Tidore & Ternate ......................................................................................................................... 62 Figure 1.7: School children, Jailolo ................................................................................................................ 62 Figure 1.9: Bathing at the beach near the school, Bacan ............................................................................. 62 Figure 1.10: Discussion with teachers, Wayamiga, Bacan ............................................................................ 62 Figure 2.1: Conceptual framework ............................................................................................................... 76 Figure 3.1: Case Study Research Design (adapted from Yin) ...................................................................... 148 Figure 4.1: Emergent Themes ..................................................................................................................... 181 Figure 4.2: SD Inpres Wayamiga, Bacan ..................................................................................................... 182 Figure 4.3: MIS Acango, Jailolo ................................................................................................................... 182 Figure 4.4: Classroom arrangement plan (1) .............................................................................................. 184 Figure 4.5: Class arrangement plan (2) ....................................................................................................... 184 Figure 4.6: Typical classroom arrangement ................................................................................................ 184 Figure 4.7: Class arrangement plan (3) ....................................................................................................... 184 Figure 4.8: ‘Tertib di sekolah’ means ‘Discipline at school’ ........................................................................ 185 Figure 4.9: Commercially produced teaching aids ...................................................................................... 185 Figure 4.10: Classroom wall display ............................................................................................................ 185 Figure 4.11: Classroom wall display ............................................................................................................ 185 Figure 4.12: Whiteboard and formal portraits of President and Vice-President........................................ 186 Figure 4.13: Commercially produced wall charts ....................................................................................... 186 Figure 4.14: Monday Morning Flag Raising Ceremony .............................................................................. 188 Figure 4.15: Practicing for Independence Day Ceremony .......................................................................... 188 Figure 4.16: Preparing for Independence Day ............................................................................................ 188 Figure 4.17: Marching for Independence Day Ceremony ........................................................................... 188 Figure 4.18: Classroom scene ..................................................................................................................... 189 Figure 4.19: Awards on display ................................................................................................................... 189 Figure 4.20: Cleaning duty .......................................................................................................................... 193 Figure 4.21: Cleaning duty .......................................................................................................................... 193 Figure 4.22: Waiting for the teacher ........................................................................................................... 193 Figure 4.23: Morning assembly (Upacara).................................................................................................. 193 Figure 4.24: Class Interaction (Frequency) ................................................................................................. 196 Figure 4.25: Class Interaction (Percentage) ................................................................................................ 197 Figure 4.26: Contextual learning outdoors ................................................................................................. 200 Figure 4.27: Energizer ................................................................................................................................. 200 Figure 4.28: Small group learning ............................................................................................................... 210 Figure 4.29: Correcting children’s work ...................................................................................................... 210 Figure 4.30: Summary of Questions in Three Observed Classes (Frequency) ............................................ 212 Figure 4.31: Science lesson in the playground ............................................................................................ 212 Figure 4.32: Science lesson in the playground ............................................................................................ 212 Figure 4.33: Maths class .............................................................................................................................. 214 Figure 4.34: Maths class .............................................................................................................................. 214 Figure 4.35: Language class ........................................................................................................................ 214 Figure 4.36: Science class ............................................................................................................................ 214
9
Figure 4.37: Focus Group Discussion with teachers from Gugus 1, Kecamatan Tidore Utara ................... 219 Figure 4.38: Focus Group Discussion with teachers from Gugus 1, Kecamatan Tidore Utara ................... 219 Figure 4.39: Local children play in the soccer field. .................................................................................... 219 Figure 4.40 & 4.41: Focus Group Discussions with teachers and school supervisors, Jailo ....................... 226 Figure 4.42: Interview, Bacan ..................................................................................................................... 226 Figure 4.43: Demonstration of active learning (science) KKG at SD N Mafututu, Gugus V, Kecamatan Tidore Selatan ............................................................................................................................................. 226 Figure 4.44: Demonstration of active learning (science) KKG at SD N Mafututu, Gugus V, Kecamatan Tidore .......................................................................................................................................................... 226 Figure 4.45: Demonstration of active learning (science) KKG at SD N Mafututu, Gugus V, Tidore Selatan .................................................................................................................................................................... 226 Figure 4.46: Example of formal cluster structure from SDI Ruum. ............................................................. 228 Figure 4.47: Children learn best by watching an adult and copying (Percentage of responses) ................ 240 Figure 4.48: ................................................................................................................................................. 245 Figure 4.49: Sources of Assistance (Percentage: Top Three Rankings) ...................................................... 246 Figure 4.50: ................................................................................................................................................. 248
10
Tables
Table 2.1: Comparing the cultural and societal contexts of active learning innovation in the UK and Indonesia ..................................................................................................................................................... 125 Table 3.1: Schools and Clusters Sampled in North Maluku Province ......................................................... 151 Table 3.2: Document Analysis ..................................................................................................................... 158 Table 3.3: Survey data collection ................................................................................................................ 160 Table 3.4: Classroom observations ............................................................................................................. 162 Table 3.5: Observations of meetings and training activities ....................................................................... 164 Table 3.6: Interviews ................................................................................................................................... 165 Table 4.1: SD/MI Early Grades (1-2) (Number of 35 minute lessons per week) ........................................ 190 Table 4.2: SD/MI Upper Grades (3-6) (Number of 35 minute lessons per week) ....................................... 191 Table 4.3: Teacher’s Planning and Observed Practice (Teacher 1: Science Lesson) ................................... 206 Table 4.4: Pattern of Teaching (Teacher 1: Science Lesson) ....................................................................... 208 Table 4.5: Case Study of Gugus 1, Kecamatan Tidore Utara ....................................................................... 218 Table 4.6: Case Study of Gugus 3, Kecamatan Tidore Utara ....................................................................... 220 Table 4.7: Case Study of Gugus 3, Kecamatan Bacan Timur ....................................................................... 221 Table 4.8: Case Study of Gugus 6, Kecamatan Bacan ................................................................................. 222 Table 4.9: Case Study of Gugus 1, Kecamatan Jailolo ................................................................................. 223 Table 4.10: Comparative Case Study of Gugus 5, Kecamatan Tidore ......................................................... 224 Table 4.11: Case Study of Gugus 1, Kecamatan Kecamatan Jailolo ............................................................ 225 Table 4.12: Cluster management and teacher professional development: perspectives from each level in the education system .................................................................................................................................. 229
11
Glossary of Terms
ADB Asia Development Bank
AIBEP Australia-Indonesia Basic Education Partnership (AusAID-funded
project)
ALPS Active Learning and Professional Support Programme (UK funded
project)
APBN Anggaran Pendapatan Belanjar Negara (National Annual Budget)
Apersepsi Introductory activity (for a lesson)
AusAID Australian Agency for International Development
Balitbang Balai Penelitian dan Pengembangan (Research and Development
Body)
BEP Basic Education Project (World-Bank funded project)
BOS Bantuan Operasional Sekolah (School Operational Fund)
BP3 Badan Pembantu Penyelenggara Pendidikan (School Parent &
Community Association – system now replaced with school
committees)
BP3K Former-Basic Education Unit in the Education Ministry
CBSA Cara Belajar Siswa Aktif (Student Active Learning Approach)
CLCC Creating Learning Communities for Children
CTL Contextual Teaching and Learning
DBE Decentralized Basic Education
DDCT Deep Dialogue and Critical Thinking
Dinas Office
Dinas Pendidikan Education Office
Gugus Cluster
IMF International Monetary Fund
JICA Japanese International Cooperation Agency
Kabupaten District – or ‗Regency‘
KBK Kurikulum Berbasis Kompetensi (Competency Based Curriculum)
12
KD Kompetensi Dasar (Basic Competency)
Kecamaten Sub-district
Kegiatan inti Core activity
Kepala Dinas Office Head
Kepala Sekolah School Head, or Principal
Kepulauan Group of islands
KKG Kelompok Kerja Guru (Teacher Working Group)
KKKS Kelompok Kerja Kepala Sekolah (Principals Working Group)
KKPS Kelompok Kerja Pengawas Sekolah (School Supervisor Working
Group)
Kota City or municipality
KTSP Kurikulum Tingkat Satuan Pendidikan (School-based Curriculum)
LAPIS Learning Assistance Program for Islamic Schools (AusAID-funded
project)
LKS Lembar Kerja Siswa (teacher-developed worksheet)
LPMP Lembaga Penjaminan Mutu Pendidikan (Education Quality Assurance
Agency)
madrasah Islamic school
MBE Managing Basic Education (USAID-funded project)
MBS Manajemen Berbasis Sekolah (School-Based Management)
MGBE Mainstreaming Good Practices in Basic Education (UNICEF-
UNESCO-funded project)
MGMP Musyawarah Guru Mata Pelajaran (Subject teacher consultation –
junior secondary teacher working groups)
MIN Madrasah Ibtidaiyah Negeri (State Islamic Primary School)
MIS Madrasah Ibtidaiyah Swasta (Private Islamic Primary School)
NAATI National Australian Accreditation for Translation and Interpreting
NGO Non-Government Organization
NTT PEP Nusa Tenggara Timur Primary Education Partnership (AusAID-funded
project)
NVivo Qualitative data analysis software program
13
OECD Organization for Economic Development
PAKEM Pembelajaran Aktif, Kreatif, Efektif dan Menyenangkan (Active,
Creative, Effective and Joyful Learning)
Pendahuluan Preparation
Pengawas (School) Supervisor
Penilaian Assessment
Penutup Closing
PEQIP Primary Education Quality Improvement Project (World Bank funded
project)
Permendiknas Peraturan Menteri Pendidikan Nasional (Minister of Education
Decree)
PGRI Persatuan Guru Republik Indonesia (Indonesian Teachers Union)
PIRLS Progress in International Reading Literacy Study
PISA Programme for International Student Assessment
PKB Pengembangan Keprofesian Berkelanjutan (Continuous Professional
Development)
PKG Pusat Kegiatan Guru (Teacher Activity Centre)
PLPG Pendidikan dan Latihan Profesi Guru (Teacher Professional Training
and Education) and
PP Peraturan Pemerintah (Government Regulation)
PPPG Pusat Pengembangan Penataran Guru (Teacher Training and
Development Centre)
PRIORITAS Mengutamakan Permbaharuan, Inovasi, dan Kesempatan bagi Guru,
Tenaga Kependidikan, dan Siswa (USAID-funded project)
PSDP Pengembangan Sumber Daya Pendidikan (Education Resource
Development division)
Puskur Pusat Kurikulum (National Curriculum Centre)
REDIP Regional Educational Development and Improvement Project (JICA-
funded project)
Rp Indonesian Rupiah
RPP Rencana Pelaksanaan Pembelajaran (Lesson Plan)
SCUK Save the Children (United Kingdom)
14
SD Sekolah Dasar (Regular Primary School)
SD Imbas Satellite Primary School
SD Inti Core Primary School
SDI Sekolah Dasar Inpres (Regular State Primary School established under
Presidential Instruction)
SDN Sekolah Dasar Negeri (Regular State Primary School)
SDS Sekolah Dasar Swasta (Regular Private Primary School)
SEQIP Science Education Quality Improvement Project (World Bank funded
project)
SK Standar Kompetensi (Standard Competency)
SK Surat Kuasa (Letter of Authority)
SPG Sekolah Pendidikan Guru (Secondary technical school for teacher
training – now a defunct system)
SSQ School Systems and Quality (AusAID-funded project)
TIMSS Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study
UK United Kingdom
Undang-Undang
Dasar Negara
Republik Indonesia
1945
National constitution or founding law
UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
UNICEF United Nations Children‘s Emergency Foundation
USA United States of America
USAID United States Agency for International Development
USD United States Dollar
UU Undang Undang (Law)
15
Chapter 1: Introduction
16
Introduction
This thesis describes a study of the implementation of Indonesia‘s national policy on active
learning. This study was conducted by an Indonesian researcher studying at an Australian
University. The multiple roles of the researcher as an Indonesian citizen, a teacher, former school
principal and education consultant, a woman, a doctoral candidate, and a researcher, are important
in this context. In this introductory chapter, the background to the study is explained. This
includes an overview of Indonesia‘s basic education system and policy framework, and
particularly Indonesia‘s policy on active learning. The role of international donors in the
developent of this policy is described, along with relevant policy instruments and reports on
implementation. The context of the study is discussed, including the important cultural context
and a description of the islands of North Maluku, where the case study was conducted. This is
followed by a brief outline of the origins and aims of the research. The research questions are then
introduced and the approach taken to answering them is described briefly.
Basic education in Indonesia
In parallel with improving access, the Indonesian Government has, since the 1970s, put in a
continuous effort to improve education quality, a problematic aim. Precisely what the term
‗quality‘ means and how it can be achieved are unclear. These questions have not been
satisfactorily resolved and a shared understanding does not yet exist among different stakeholders
in the nation. See, for example, the variety of opinions expressed by former President, B.J.
Habibie, former Vice President, Yusuf Kalla, and others including Syawal Gultom, the Head of
the Personnel Body (Badan Pengembangan Pendidik dan Tenaga Kependidikan) of the Ministry
of Education and Culture at a National Education Convention recently held by the State Union of
17
Indonesian Teachers, known as PGRI (Damanik, 2014). The effort to improve education quality
in the 1970‘s and 1980s focussed on improving the teaching and learning process through the
introduction of an active learning approach. Since 1998, which marks the changing of government
from the New Order to the current reform period, the focus has shifted to structural policy change.
We witness the explosion of education policies on issues of basic education, education
decentralization, national standards, and teacher certification. While the policy on active learning
has been reiterated in national standards and curriculum documents, the number of policies on
structural matters is far greater. This focus on structural matters rather than on the teaching and
learning process seems to suggest that education quality is regarded by policy makers as
achievable through regulatory mechanisms and structural reform, rather than through changing
classroom processes and teacher-student interaction. At the same time, we have also witnessed the
national examination system consuming a great deal of public attention, which suggests that
education quality is framed in terms of test scores (Cannon & Arlianti, 2009).
In amongst these various views over what education quality means and how it is achieved, the
majority of schools across the country continue to demonstrate a remarkably stable pattern of
classroom practices dominated by rows of desks, whole-class grouping systems and ‗chalk and
talk‘. This is despite the fact that Indonesia has experimented with quality improvement projects
for more than 35 years. Little has changed in the way teachers teach and principals manage
schools (Heyward & Sopantini, 2013; Semiawan, 2003).
18
Indonesia‘s basic education system
The quality and effectiveness of basic education is recognized as a key element in Indonesia‘s
national strategy to reduce poverty and create an open and democratic society. The aim of
national development in Indonesia is to create a nation which is safe and secure, fair and
democratic, and prosperous. In order to achieve this, the national education system is committed
to transforming Indonesia from a traditional society into a modern nation. This is evident in the
2005-2009 National Development Plan (Government of Indonesia, 2005a), and the 2005-2009
Ministry of National Education Strategic Plan (Ministry of National Education, 2007a).
With a population of 240 million, Indonesia is the fourth largest nation in the world. Along with
significant minority Christian, Hindu and Buddhist communities, it has the largest Islamic
population of any nation. Indonesia is a diverse country: an archipelago of 13,000 islands and
home to over 300 ethnic groups. Although now regarded as a ‗lower middle income‘ country
(World Bank, 2011), poverty remains prevalent with 13 per cent of the population living below
the national poverty line and around half living on less than USD2.00 a day.
Approximately 260,000 public and private schools and 3.4 million teachers provide an education
to some 51 million children in Indonesia (Jalal, 2011). Schooling is administered and delivered
through two parallel systems: the Ministry for Education and Culture administers regular state and
private schools; the Ministry for Religious Affairs administers state and private Islamic schools,
known as madrasah. Note that the Ministry of Education and Culture (Kementrian Pendidikan
dan Kebudayaan) was known as the National Ministry of Education (Kementrian Pendidikan
Nasional) at the time the case study was conducted. The term ‗regular schools‘ is used here in
19
preference to the term ‗secular schools‘, which is sometimes used, as these schools, administered
under the Ministry of Education and Culture, include private schools run by religious foundations.
All schools in Indonesia, state and private, provide religious instruction within the national
curriculum framework.
Approximately 20 per cent of Indonesian children are educated in the Islamic system. To the
casual observer there is little to differentiate state and private schools or regular and Islamic
schools in Indonesia. Notwithstanding policies aimed at decentralizing curriculum, schools and
madrasah teach a standardized national curriculum and all students are assessed in the same
standardized national examination system. The government, through both ministries, funds the
majority of teachers in all schools and madrasah, state and private – although this varies
considerably with many private madrasah under-served in terms of staffing, funds and resources.
The formal schooling system in Indonesia is structured in three levels, spanning twelve years. In
addition, early childhood centres and kindergartens provide pre-schooling. Students progress
through the formal education system on the basis of annual assessments. National examinations
are held at the end of primary school (sekolah dasar or SD; madrasah ibtidaiyah or MI), junior-
secondary school (sekolah menengah pertama or SMP; madrasah tsanawiyah or MTs), and
senior-secondary school (sekolah menengah atas or SMA; madrasah aliyah or MA) respectively.
The primary curriculum is structured along standard lines, divided into subjects: Indonesian
language (Bahasa Indonesia), Mathematics, Science, Social Science, Arts, Physical Education
and Religion. In addition, schools teach ‗local content‘ subjects. Frequently this includes English
language although it may also encompass local languages and cultures. The secondary school
20
curriculum becomes progressively more specialized, with Science divided into the traditional
fields of Chemistry, Physics and Biology, for example. Madrasah at all levels also teach
traditional Islamic subjects.
Over 90 per cent of regular primary schools and around 70 per cent of secondary school schools
are state owned (Ministry of National Education, 2006a). In the Islamic system the pattern is
reversed: 90 per cent of madrasah are private (Ministry of Religious Affairs, 2006). Private
schools in Indonesia fall into two categories: (1) private fee-paying schools generally regarded as
high standard (these are mainly Catholic or Protestant, with a few Islamic schools in the major
cities), and (2) private madrasah and regular schools serving poor communities, generally
regarded as low standard (these include Islamic and Catholic schools). In all but a few cases,
private schools and madrasah are run by religious foundations, the majority Catholic, Protestant or
Islamic.
According to the 2011 Education for All Global Monitoring Report, 96 per cent of Indonesian
children receive some primary schooling. Of these, 80 per cent complete primary school (United
Nations Education Scientific and Cultural Organization, 2011). Gross enrolment rates for
secondary schooling are 72 per cent and for higher education 22 per cent (Net enrolments are 57
per cent and 12 per cent respectively) (Jalal, 2011). Some 92 per cent of the population are literate
(Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2010, United Nations Education
Scientific and Cultural Organization, 2011). These are significant achievements for a young
nation which at the time of independence provided schooling to less than 6 per cent of its citizens
(Brojonegoro, 2001, cited in Kristiansen & Pratikno, 2006).
21
Indonesia‘s basic education policy framework
In 1998, following a monetary crisis and widespread riots, President Suharto was swept from
power in Indonesia‘s second major political transition since independence. A succession of
democratically elected governments has since governed the country in what has become known as
the reform era. Reforms in the education sector have occurred within the context of ‗reformasi‘, a
broad movement to create an open society, a democratic political system, and clean, responsive
and decentralized government. In addition to the official aims of producing educated and morally
upright citizens, the wider aims of education are now to create a more democratic society and a
more competitive nation. Over the decade since the reform period commenced, a raft of new
policies has reshaped the regulatory framework for education:
Laws on regional autonomy (1999, 2004)
Regulation on school committees and district school boards (2002)
The National Education System Act (2003)
National Education Standards, which include standards for curriculum process and
outcomes, management, teacher qualifications and infrastructure (2005, 2006, 2007)
School-based curriculum regulation (2006), based on a proposed national ‗competency-
based curriculum‘ (2004) which was piloted but never adopted in its entirety
Law on teachers and university lecturers (2005), which sets standards for teachers and
academics
Minimum Service Standards, which include standards for district level management and
school level delivery of education (2010)
The following figure sets out the reform policy framework:
22
Figure 1.1: National Policy Framework for Basic Education Reform since 2000
Ministerial Regulation (Permendiknas)
No. 24/2007 Facility Standards
Education Governance Curriculum & Pedagogy Personnel and Facilities
Ministerial Regulations (Permendiknas)
No. 12/2007
Supervisor Standards
No. 12/2007 Supervisor Standards
No. 13/2007 School Principal
Standards
No. 16/2007 Teacher Standards
No. 18/2007 Teacher Certification
Law (UU) No. 20/2003 on National Education System
(Sisdiknas)
Regulation (PP) No. 19/2005 on National Standards
Regulation (PP) No. 48/2008 on Education Finance
Regulation (PP) No. 38/2007 on Governance Distributions
Regulation (PP) No. 47/2008 on Compulsory Education
Ministerial Regulation
(Kepmendiknas)
No.44/U/2002
On the role and function of
School Committees and School
Boards
Ministerial Regulations
(Permendiknas)
No. 23/2006 Graduate Competency
Standards
No. 24/2006 Implementation
of 22 & 23
No. 22/2006 (Curriculum) Content
Standards
No. 41/2007 Process Standards
(Pedagogy)
23
Taken together, the various reform policies give greater autonomy to districts to manage
education systems within a national policy framework, increase the autonomy of
universities, and give far greater autonomy to schools to develop ‗school-based curricula‘
within the context of ‗school-based management‘. Communities are given greater
authority in the governance of education through district education boards and school
committees. In addition, the reforms mandate have improved conditions and increased
qualifications for teachers along with an active learning approach and a competency-
based curriculum framework for schools at all levels in the system.
To support school-based management and reduce the burden on families resulting from
fuel price increases, in 2005 the Government introduced School Operational Funding
(Bantuan Operasional Sekolah, known as BOS). As a result, schools now receive per-
capita grant funding from the central government, giving them for the first time some
financial independence
Also during this period, political and professional groups lobbied government to honour
the terms of the national constitution and allocate a minimum of 20 per cent of budgets at
national, provincial and district level to education. Partly as a result of this substantial
increase in education funding, a massive national program to improve the quality of
teaching in Indonesian schools through teacher upgrading commenced in 2007. The aim
was and still is to upgrade teacher qualifications over a five-seven year period, to achieve
a minimum standard for all school teachers at degree level and higher education lecturers
at post-graduate level. Despite good intentions, the program has not been without critics
24
or problems. The upgrading of so many teachers in such a brief period has required a
massive in-service program using teacher training universities as providers. With
resources stretched to the limit, serious questions have arisen about the quality of this
training. Teacher certification is directly linked to salary increases and as a result a
corrupt, informal payment-for-results system has allegedly developed. Meanwhile the
teachers‘ union, representing senior teachers, lobbied the government to soften its policy,
enabling experienced teachers to gain certification on the basis of portfolio assessment
rather than academic achievement or professional competence. The result is that the aim
of increasing quality in the teaching force has been seriously compromised in the short
term while the cost of the program remains high.
Linked to certification, teacher salaries have increased dramatically, in many cases
doubling, bringing Indonesia more in line with other countries in the region. Efforts are
also underway to improve efficiency in the recruitment and deployment of teachers.
Indonesia has a large number of small schools and a very low average student-teacher
ratio. However, problems exist with an often chronic under-supply of teachers in rural
and isolated areas mirrored by over-supply in urban areas. Mismatching is another serious
problem with teachers required to teach in subject areas for which they are unqualified,
especially in madrasah.
Challenges in policy implementation
Implementation of these policies is a work-in-progress as described in this study.
Government laws or regulations in themselves are not a sufficient ingredient for the
25
successful implementation of education policy aimed at effecting changes at a school
level (Fullan, 1991; Hallinger, 2005). However, many policymakers and practitioners in
Indonesia seem to believe the contrary (World Bank, 2005), as illustrated in the following
extract from a Curriculum Centre report:
From the curriculum planning, development, and implementation since the Curriculum
Centre was established, it is clear that education policy is the basis of all the curriculum
change that occurs. (Soedijarto, Thamrin, Karyadi, Siskandar, & Sumiyati, 2010, p 114)
Dari perjalanan perencanaan, pengembangan, dan penerapan kurikulum sejak adanya
Puskur nampak betapa perubahan kurikulum yang dilaksanakan landasannya adalah
adanya kebijakan pendidikan (Soedijarto, Thamrin, Karyadi, Siskandar, & Sumiyati,
2010, p 114).
While Indonesia‘s education reform policies are generally regarded by international
donors as sound (Australian Agency for International Development, 2010; World Bank,
2004) the challenge is to implement these policies across Indonesia‘s vast education
system. Despite over thirty years of reform and substantial support from the international
donor community, little has changed in the majority of Indonesia‘s schools, classrooms
and higher education institutions. Reformers face big challenges: the quality of teaching
is low, the capacity of districts to manage education in a decentralized system is limited,
the system at all levels is plagued by corruption (Hendri, 2013) and student learning
outcomes are weak. In the 2009 Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA)
test, Indonesia ranked 57 out of 65 participating countries, scoring significantly lower
than the Organization for Economic Development (OECD) average on every area
26
assessed (reading, mathematics, and science). More than half of the Indonesian students
participating in the reading test and nearly 80 per cent of those participating in the
mathematics test scored below the proficiency level (Organization for Economic Co-
operation and Development, 2010). In the 2007 Trends in International Mathematics and
Science Study (TIMSS), Indonesia ranked 36 out of a total of 48 countries on
mathematical literacy. Indonesia‘s ranking dropped between 2003 and 2007
(International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement, 2008). The
Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS) assessed reading skills of
Grade 4 students in forty countries in the world against four international benchmarks in
2006. A majority of participating students in Indonesia had not acquired basic reading
skills even after four years of primary schooling (United Nations Education Scientific and
Cultural Organization, 2011). These relatively poor results cannot be attributed only to
poverty.
Standardized international exams demonstrate that Indonesia‘s student outcomes are
lower than those of students in other developing countries, even after taking family
socioeconomic status into account. This fact suggests that deficiencies in the education
system, rather than the socioeconomic backgrounds of students, are responsible for lower
levels of performance (World Bank, 2010).
Meanwhile, perennial differences between regions in national examination results
highlight the challenge of inequity between the high performing urban districts,
concentrated on the island of Java, and remote and rural districts in the outer islands.
27
Decentralization and associated reforms have not yet resulted in significant quality
improvements and may have actually increased the disparities between districts and,
moreover, between schools within districts. District autonomy and school-based
management have generally favoured the urban schools which serve the wealthy, political
and bureaucratic elites, leaving rural and remote schools under-served. A lack of good
data on which district policy makers can make informed decisions continues to
exacerbate this problem (Heyward & Sopantini, 2013).
The national Ministry‘s teacher training centres located in each province have been
restructured as ‗Education Quality Assurance Bodies‘ known as LPMP. However, the
capacity of these institutions - and the system which supports them - to guarantee quality
is very limited. Furthermore, the decentralization of authority to districts and schools
leaves the provinces and LPMP without an effective mandate to implement or support a
national reform agenda. After ten years of district autonomy, the capacity of districts to
govern and manage education remains low. Although improving, the capacity of schools
to effectively self-manage is still also low.
As a backdrop to all this bureaucratic reform, the politics of interest that persist in
Indonesian government continue to hamper efforts to improve education. Indonesia is
developing as a modern nation in which democratic values underpin government
practices. Within this journey, contradictions are encounteed between traditional values,
such as loyalty and reciprocal obligations to family, friends and clan, and modern values,
such as efficiency and the creation of a clean and corruption-free government. In the
28
world of education many interest groups are said to interfere with the course and practice
and management of education reform. These interests are complex, dynamic and multi-
layered. Reform and national values are still a matter of debate among the elite at the
national level. A shared understanding does not yet exist as to the nature of the problems
and how to address them, let alone an agreed vision and time frame for resolution.
One example of this is the reform of learning. The introduction of an active learning
methodology is arguably hampered by the national examination system, which rewards
rote learning and traditional modes of instruction. The politics of interest are significant
in this case, particularly as they collude to create an ‗ensemble‘ or cluster of interest. The
maintenance of the examination system is arguably a result of such interests. Firstly, the
central government needs the system as a tool to measure the performance of learners. A
second national interest is also served, which is the need to keep the nation together, to
maintain and to some extent control, a standardized system. Meanwhile, other more
pragmatic interests are also served. Among others are the commercial interests of
publishing companies to produce various text books and educational materials that align
with the exam. In the past, officials from the Ministry have colluded with publishers and
distorted the procurement process for personal gain and to obtain funds for other political
purposes.
A comprehensive series of studies conducted by the World Bank recently found that the
increased spending on education and the massive teacher certification program described
above, which aims to improve education quality by improving teacher qualifications, has
29
succeeded in improving teacher welfare, but so far there is no evidence to show
improvements in learning outcomes (World Bank, in press).
On the positive side of the equation, Indonesia has made significant advances in
improving access, with near universal access to primary schooling and increasing access
to secondary schooling and higher education. Drop-out rates have decreased, retention to
secondary school and higher education is increasing and teacher absenteeism has
decreased, according to one study, from 20 per cent in 2003 to 14 per cent in 2008
(Toyamah, 2009). Adult literacy levels are impressive. Indonesia‘s performance on
gender indicators is also impressive, providing a model not only within the region but in
the broader Islamic world (Heyward & Sopantini, 2013).
Active learning in Indonesia
The development of an active learning policy
Since the beginning, international donors have played a key role in the effort to reform
pedagogy and improve the quality and relevance of schooling in Indonesia. By the end of
the 1970s the Indonesian Government had achieved widespread coverage of primary
education through the Inpres school building program, but concern was growing about
the quality of education being delivered. The prevalence of ‗chalk and talk‘ teaching
methodologies was highlighted as the main reason for adopting active learning in the
study conducted by the then Basic Education Unit in the Education Ministry (BP3K,
1979 cited in Tangyong, Wahyudi, Gardner, & Hawes, 1989, p. i). However, in another
30
study conducted thirty years later which reported on active learning as pioneered in
1970‘s, the reasons expanded to include the benefit of active learning to students‘ being
able to think critically (Soedijarto, Thamrin, Karyadi, Siskandar, & Sumiyati, 2010). Both
studies described the UK Government-supported Cianjur Project, which adopting active
learning methodologies in West Java. From 1985 this pilot project was expanded to a
further six districts in different provinces and became known as Active Learning through
Professional Support (ALPS, usually referred to as Cara Belajar Siswa Aktif or CBSA in
Indonesian). Besides training teachers to use active learning methodologies, the project
also set up a school cluster system with teacher working groups (Kelompok Kerja Guru
or KKG). The project sought to bring about dramatic changes in the classrooms and to
make the children active participants in the lessons. CBSA became the jargon of the day
to refer to the new approach which aimed to change the role of children from passive into
active participants in their learning. Initially 60 schools were included but following an
expansion the schools were grouped into clusters of 8-10 with one in each cluster being
identified as the lead school, locally known as Sekolah Dasar (or SD) Inti or ‗core
school‘, and the remainder known as SD Imbas or ‗satellite schools‘.
Elements of CBSA were incorporated in the 1984 national curriculum (Gardner, 1990;
Tangyong, Wahyudi, Gardner & Hawes, 1989). The government applied to the World
Bank for a loan to expand the project to six new provinces. This new project was called
the Primary Education Quality Improvement Project (PEQIP) and ran from 1992 to 1997.
However, due to a combination of internal politics within the Ministry of Education and
questions about the appropriateness of active learning to Indonesia at the time, CBSA
31
was dropped (Heyward & Sopantini: 2013). As a result, PEQIP focused mainly on
spreading the cluster system and the policy of active learning languished for several
years.
The approach was picked up again by a program started by UNICEF and UNESCO in
1999, which also built on experience in other countries including India. The program,
known as Creating Learning Communities for Children (CLCC), focused not only on
active learning but also on the need to improve school management and community
support for schools. Since then this approach has become the main focus of the
government‘s effort to improve teaching quality in primary schools. The term PAKEM
introduced by CLCC is an acronym for Pembelajaran yang Aktif, Kreatif, Efektif dan
Menyenangkan, which translates as Active, Creative, Effective and Joyful Learning. A
similar approach in secondary schools is known as Contextual Teaching and Learning
(CTL). These terms are still commonly used in discussions of policy and practice 15
years later.
Over the last decade a number of development projects have replicated and further
developed the CLCC methodology, and supported the government in its efforts to
introduce PAKEM across the nation. This includes projects funded and implemented in
partnership with the government by international agencies such as the World Bank, the
Asia Development Bank, the European Union, UNICEF and UNESCO; national aid
agencies from Britain, Australia, the USA, New Zealand, Japan, the Netherlands and
32
Germany; and international non-government organizations such as PLAN International
and Save the Children.
Improving teaching practices is no easy task, however, especially in a system so vast and
so diverse, and facing such serious problems of management and governance. Reform
efforts currently rely heavily on the school cluster system established by CBSA and
PEQIP. Across the country, some 7,000 cluster-based teacher working groups, known at
primary school level as Kelompok Kerja Guru (KKG), now provide a forum for in-
service teacher training. Secondary school teachers come together in groups based on
teaching subjects, known as Musyawarah Guru Mata Pelajaran (MGMP). While the
KKG are based at sub-district level and generally comprise between five and ten schools,
MGMP are usually at district level. Indonesia is currently divided into around 500
districts which, since the reforms of the early 2000s, have been given major responsibility
for managing education. The early CBSA and PEQIP programs attempted to disseminate
reforms by training key teachers in core schools. The hope was that the changes would be
spread to satellite schools in each cluster. However, this often did not occur and the
reforms failed to be sustained beyond the life of the project. More recent projects tend to
work with groups of schools in clusters and to involve all teachers in all schools. Linked
to the sub-district and cluster system, some 24,000 school supervisors support primary
school teachers nationwide. However, the ability of these supervisors to facilitate changes
in classroom practice is generally rather limited. The Australian Government aid agency
recently invested in a massive ‗cascade training‘ program for 630,000 school personnel in
school-based management. Some 1,786 trainers, most of whom were school supervisors,
33
conducted approximately 10,000 cluster-based sessions. An independent review found
that the results were disappointing due to ‗...challenges in the supervision, quality control,
and consistency of the training program‘s implementation...‘ (Shaeffer, 2014, p.5).
A qualitative study of pedagogy in junior-secondary school mathematics classes found
that between 2007 and 2011, the use of active learning approaches actually declined.
Possible reasons given for this decline were the increased importance placed on national
examination results (and thus an increased focus on rote-learning) and a loss of
momentum behind the implementation of the pedagogical reforms introduced in the early
2000s (World Bank: in press).
In parallel with the effort to implement active learning approaches in Indonesian
classrooms, the government introduced the complementary policies of school-based
management and school-based curriculum (KTSP). Many of the recent donor-funded
projects have taken an integrated approach to school improvement as modelled first
through the CLCC project, focussing on the three ‗pillars‘ of school-based management,
community participation and active learning (PAKEM). School-based management
policies, supported by BOS funding, are intended to improve management, increase
transparency and enhance local community participation in school development planning.
Meanwhile in 2006, piloting of the 2004 national curriculum, known as the Competency
Based Curriculum (Kurikulum Berbasis Kompetensi or KBK) was discontinued. In its
place, the concept of school-based curriculum was introduced. The idea was that schools
34
should develop their own curriculum within a framework of national standards. The
reality was somewhat different. As illustrated in the case study reported in this thesis,
schools at present do not typically have the capacity or motivation to develop curriculum.
Most teachers continue to rely on standardized text books and focus primarily on
covering the content which will be assessed through the national examination system. In
this context, the concept of school-based curriculum has come to be understood by
teachers as meaning something similar to PAKEM: an alternative approach to the
traditional didactic approach taken in most classrooms.
The Government is now introducing a new curriculum, the 2013 Curriculum, which is
effectively a return to the nationally mandated approach of the past, but with a greater
focus on thematic integration of learning in primary schools and the achievement of basic
competencies. At the time of writing, this new curriculum is in the early stage of
implementation. The curriculum adopts an active learning approach which stresses cross-
curricula thematic learning, authentic assessment and an inquiry-based method. Text
books are expected to be available in 2014.
Active learning in policy documents
The following section places Indonesia‘s policy on active learning in the historical
context of the Indonesian primary curriculum development, from the time when active
learning was introduced in Indonesian education in the 1970‘s until today.
35
The most explicit statements of active learning as a policy can be found in the 1984
primary curriculum statement, which detailed both the conceptual as well as practical
basis for the adoption of active learning pedagogy in the curriculum. More recently, the
policy is stated in the national education standards document (Government Regulation,
19, 2005) as follows:
Education should be a process of acculturation and empowering life-long learners, which
requires educators who provide a model and are able to build the motivation, as well as
develop the potential and creativity, of learners. This principle creates a paradigm shift in
the educational process, from the teaching paradigm to the learning paradigm. While the
teaching paradigm is focused on the role of educators in transferring knowledge to their
students, the shift to the learning paradigm gives a greater role to the learners to develop
their own potential and creativity.... (Government of Indonesia, 2005b, p. 45).
Penyelenggaraan pendidikan dinyatakan sebagai suatu proses pembudayaan dan
pemberdayaan peserta didik yang berlangsung sepanjang hayat, di mana dalam proses
tersebut harus ada pendidik yang memberikan keteladanan dan mampu membangun
kemauan, serta mengembangkan potensi dan kreativitas peserta didik. Prinsip tersebut
menyebabkan adanya pergeseran paradigma proses pendidikan, dari paradigma
pengajaran ke paradigma pembelajaran. Paradigma pengajaran yang lebih
menitikberatkan peran pendidik dalam mentransformasikan pengetahuan kepada peserta
didiknya bergeser pada paradigma pembelajaran yang memberikan peran lebih banyak
kepada peserta didik untuk mengembangkan potensi dan kreativitas dirinya...
(Government of Indonesia, 2005b, p.45).
36
The ‗paradigm shift‘ from teacher-centred to student-centred and active learning
described above is further explained below. The illustrations below highlight the
centrality of active learning pedagogy in the primary curriculum. The following
statements highlight the basis for the model of teachers‘ in service training to supports the
adoption of active learning:
The scope of activities includes the development of workshop models (model penataran),
professional support/supervision models; and teaching and learning models depicting
active learning principles (CBSA). The term CBSA was first introduced as a learning
discourse in the P3G Project in 1979. (Soedijarto, Thamrin, Karyadi, Siskandar, &
Sumiyati, 2010, p. 28).
Ruang lingkup kegiatan mencakup pengembangan: model penataran, model
supervisi/bantuan profesional, dan model belajar mengajar ―Cara Belajar Siswa Aktif‖
(CBSA) . Istilah CBSA pertama kali diperkenalkan sebagai wacana oleh proyek P3G
pada tahun 1979. (Soedijarto, Thamrin, Karyadi, Siskandar, & Sumiyati, 2010, p. 28)
The following excerpt from a report produced by the Curriculum Centre, describes what
is meant by the term ‗active learning‘:
Active learning does not only mean children doing physical activities, but the focus is
more on mental activities, actively thinking, critically thinking and problem solving
(Soedijarto, Thamrin, Karyadi, Siskandar & Sumiyati, 2010, p. 33).
Belajar aktif bukan semata mata aktif secara fisik, tetapi lebih menekankan kepada
mental yang aktif, berpikir aktif, berfikir kritis dan mampu memecahkan masalah.
(Soedijarto, Thamrin, Karyadi, Siskandar & Sumiyati, 2010, p. 33).
37
The intended approach to active learning is described as follows:
The teaching and learning process is carried out by focussing more on how students learn,
in addition to what they learn. Therefore, the teaching and learning process needs to be
centred on students (student-centred) and no longer centred on teachers (teacher-centred).
The teaching and learning approach must be directed at making students active.
(Soedijarto, Thamrin, Karyadi, Siskandar, & Sumiyati, 2010, p. 58).
Proses belajar-mengajar dilaksanakan dengan lebih banyak mengacu kepada bagaimana
peserta didik belajar, selain kepada apa yang ia pelajari. Dengan demikian proses
belajar mengajar perlu berpusat pada peserta didik (student centered) daripada berpusat
pada guru (teacher centered). Pendekatan belajarmengajar harus diarahkan pada Cara
Belajar Siswa Aktif … . (Soedijarto, Thamrin, Karyadi, Siskandar, & Sumiyati, 2010, p.
58)
In the 1994 Curriculum which replaced the 1984 Curriculum, the concept of active
learning was not stated as elaborately and explicitly but the teaching and learning
approach described in this curriculum still incorporated active learning. This is evident in
the fact that changes that were made refered to structural matters of curriculum including
reducing the amount of overlapping curriculum content, simplifying primary school
mathematics content, and developing curriculum guidelines and resources for
curriculum development, but did not include the teaching and learning principles.
38
Similarly, the active learning approach was embedded in the 2000 Competency-Based
Curriculum (KBK) document called Kegiatan Belajar Mengajar Yang Efektif (Effective
Teaching and Learning). This curriculum replaced the 1994 curriculum in 2004.
While this Competency-Based Curriculum (KBK) was undergoing an internal review,
active learning as a policy was still embedded in its replacement, which came to be
known as the School-Based Curriculum (KTSP). In a parallel set of policies derived from
the UNICEF-UNESCO Creating Learning Communities for Children (CLCC) project
described above, and the Ministry‘s own School-Based Management project, active
learning came to be known among teachers as PAKEM.
There was never a national curriculum document for KTSP. The concept was that schools
should develop their own curricula based on a set of national standards. As described in
the section above on Indonesia‘s basic education policy framework, the national
education standards include a set of standards on the educational process. The standards
that are pertinent to active learning principles include the following:
The learning process in the school is carried out in a way that is interactive, inspirational,
enjoyable, challenging, motivating students to be active participants, and it gives
adequate space for initiative, creativity, and independence that suit students‘ talent and
interest, their psychological and physical development. (Government of Indonesia,
2005b, p. 11)
Proses pembelajaran pada satuan pendidikan diselenggarakan secara interaktif,
inspiratif, menyenangkan, menantang, memotivasi peserta didik untuk berpartisipasi
39
aktif, serta memberikan ruang yang cukup bagi prakarsa, kreativitas, dan kemandirian
sesuai dengan bakat, minat, dan perkembangan fisik serta psikologis peserta didik. .
(Government of Indonesia, 2005b, p. 11)
The 2013 Curriculum currently being introduced adopts a thematic and integrated approach.
According to government statements, this new approach reinforces the previous commitment to
active learning.
The idea of thematic and integrative models is not intended to change the overall active
learning active approach for all subjects at all levels of schooling as required by the law.
(Abduhzen, 2013)
Gagasan tematik dan integratif tidak dirancang untuk pembaruan model pembelajaran
siswa aktif (active learning) yang menyeluruh bagi semua mata pelajaran di setiap
jenjang persekolahan seperti dikehendaki UU. (Abduhzen, 2013)
In conclusion, active learning pedagogy has been embedded in the primary curriculum
since the adoption of 1984 curriculum. The policy statements vary from explicit to
implicit statements. The implicit policies, however, were followed by more detailed
teacher guidelines that essentially focussed on the centrality of children in the learning
process and the role of teachers not as transmitter of knowledge but as a facilitator. The
names by which this pedagogy has been known and abbreviated in the daily vocabulary
of teaching and learning in the Indonesian primary schools, however, have varied over
time and between the different policies.
40
Implementation of active learning; government reports
Analysis of reports issued by the then Ministry of National Education in 2007 highlights
the limited implementation of the earlier curriculum reforms and of active learning across
the country, including in North Maluku, where the case study was conducted.
Three relevant documents were issued by the National Education Ministry: the first by
the research unit of MONE‘s Research and Development Body, Balitbang, and the
second and third by Curriculum Centre, or Pusat Kurikulum, within Balitbang. The theme
that emerged from these documents is that implementation was very limited, as is
conveyed in the below:
The implementation of thematic learning in Years One to Three is not according to the
Content Standard, because the teachers experience difficulties in developing the syllabus
according to the Competency Standard (CS) and Basic Competencies (BC) as dictated in
the Content Standard. Other than that, teachers experience difficulties in allocating the
time…. they generally have yet to receive proper training in to carry out this thematic
learning. (Ministry of National Education, 2007b, p. 12).
Pelaksanaan Pembelajaran Tematik di kelas I s.d III tidak berjalan sesuai dengan
ketentuan Standar Isi, karena guru-guru mengalami kesulitan dalam menyusun silabus
sesuai dengan Standar Kompetensi (SK) dan Kompetensi Dasar (KD) yang ditetapkan
dalam Standar Isi. Selain itu guru-guru mengalami kesulitan dalam mengalokasikan
waktu… Mereka umumnya belum mendapat pelatihan yang cukup memadai dalam
pelaksanaan pembelajaran tematik. (Ministry of National Education, 2007b, p. 12).
41
The same theme also emerged from other documents, as illustrated below:
….participants find difficulties in understanding school-based curriculum implementation
concepts, among others the minimum criteria for mastery, syllabus development,
planning and carrying out teaching and learning , … (Ministry of National Education,
2007c, pp. 25-26).
……peserta masih kesulitan dalam memahami konsep-konsep pengembangan KTSP
antara lain kriteria ketuntasan minimal, pengembangan silabus, pengembangan RPP….
(Ministry of National Education, 2007c, pp. 25-26).
The section of this report which describes implementation in North Maluku Province
provides only a general statement with no details of any particular schools, which, if any,
were implementing the new curriculum, or how these schools were attempting the
implementation. See below for an example of comments from this report:
Although socialization and training for school-based curriculum have been conducted by
the various units involved, schools/madrasah have not yet developed KTSP fully or in
line with expectations. (Ministry of National Education, 2007b, p. 12).
Meskipun sosialisasi dan pelatihan KTSP telah dilaksanakan oleh berbagai unit terkait,
namun belum sepenuhnya sekolah/madrasah dapat mengembangkan KTSP sesuai
dengan harapan. (Ministry of National Education, 2007b, p. 12).
The report on monitoring of implementation of the 2006 school-based curriculum in 33
42
provinces across the country highlights similar themes. One of these is that teachers
were reported to have found difficulties with critical concepts including in developing
lessons plan and carrying out teaching as expected.
Lost in translation: the problem of policy borrowing
Indonesian education policy has been heavily influenced throughout the period described
above by the agenda of international donors, including the World Bank. Similar reforms
have been attempted in Indonesia as elsewhere in the developed world, including
decentralization and school-based management. Active learning is part of the broader
reform movement in this context. As mentioned earlier, in Indonesia the term school-
based management is generally taken to be inclusive of pedagogical reforms, specifically
active learning. As a result of the UNICEF-UNESCO project, Creating Learning
Communities for Children (CLCC), it is generally understood to consist of school-based
management, community participation and active learning.
Unlike in the developed, or ‗industrialized‘ world, much of Indonesia‘s education reform
policy has been funded by international and multinational agencies. The funding sources
inevitably impact on the nature of the policy (Alexander, 2001; Tabulawa, 2003). In
many industrialized countries including Australia, USA, Canada, and the UK,
educational innovations over the last thirty years have focussed on such issues as
‗restructuring,‘ ‗decentralization,‘ ‗site-base management,‘ new ‗curriculum
frameworks,‘ and ‗school choice‘ (Fullan, 2001). These changes for the most part
emphasize new forms of management and decision making, in which teachers and
43
parents acquire more active roles beyond the management of their immediate classrooms
and children. Some of the changes represent strategies to reduce public financial support
for education or, at least, to put a lid on expenditures. In the United States,
comprehensive innovations are rather recent, dating from the mid-1980s, and involve the
systemic alignment of curriculum frameworks, textbook selection, and assessment
(Knapp, 1997). Being comprehensive, they attempt to align various elements into
coherent unity with one another.
In developing countries the influence of international donor agencies is fundamental and
the role of these agencies in supporting adoption and experimentation with an innovation
constitutes a major element in the early life of the innovation. Grants and low-interest
loans lower the risks of adopting an innovation. Donor agencies play a role in the early
death of the innovation as well, as processes established with insufficient local
involvement are susceptible to quick demise when external funds diminish or disappear
(Guthrie, 2011; Havelock & Huberman , 1977 ).
Theories on policy transfer and policy borrowing will be discussed in the context of
globalization and the politics of international aid in Chapter Two. Analysis of reforms in
Indonesia in particular and Asia in general is made complicated by the fact that many
reforms are borrowed from developed nations (Hallinger, 2005; Stephens, 2007). The
contexts in which the reforms are to be implemented, including the cultural values of
societies, often differ markedly to the context from which the reform approaches were
derived. A clash is sometimes evident between the values embedded in reform policies
44
and those embedded in the societal culture and as experienced by teachers, principals and
school supervisors; the local actors charged with policy implementation.
Phillips (2009) describes this spectrum of five options of transfer, and provides some
examples of where they have been observed in history:
1. Imposed, by totalitarian and/or authoritarian rule. Colonized countries required to
adopt approaches to education common in the colonizers‘ countries, and Soviet
Bloc countries after World War II.
2. Required under constraint, in defeated or occupied countries. Examples are Japan
and Germany after World War II.
3. Negotiated under constraint, as required by bilateral and multilateral agreements.
Examples are World Bank loans in return for changes in policy and practice.
4. Borrowed purposefully, through the intentional copying of policy and practice
observed elsewhere. When policy is consciously adopted in one context after
being observed in another, borrowing is seen as a deliberate, purposive
phenomenon in educational policy development.
5. Introduced through the general influence of educational ideas and methods.
Theories of education developed by such figures of international status as
Pestalozzi, Dewey, and Piaget have a powerful influence on the forces of
educational globalization.
These possibilities also describe a power relationship between the providers of ideas and
the implementers in a specific educational context. In Option 1 above, the external
45
pressure to reform education in certain ways is very high, but in Option 5, the transfer
and reforms are to a large extent initiated internally.
Active learning pedagogy is not that simple to enact in the classroom because it is
essentially a case of international transfer using combined options from the list above.
Although, it is mainly Option 3 that drove the initiative in 1970‘s, later, when some
elements of the project showed promise of being taken up, Option 1 helped in the
adoption of the initiative – thanks to the centralized education system. Soon afterward the
adopted innovation became an imposed policy by the central government. Then it
appeared in several curriculum policy documents and prescribed practices. It thus looked
like Option 5 provides a better fit. It appears that theories of education developed by such
figures of international status as Pestalozzi, Dewey, and Piaget seems to underlie the
teaching and learning practices in Indonesian primary schools – or at least on paper.
A related problem, which illustrates the broader problem of policy transfer, concerns the
translation of terms. The problem of ‗lost in translation‘ can result in a local term with a
slightly reduced or diluted meaning from the original version. It can also result in an
expanded or distorted meaning. The term ‗active learning‘ has its Indonesian derivatives
including Cara Belajar Siswa Aktif (usually abbreviated as CBSA), which literally means
‗Student Active Learning Method‘ and Pembelajaran yang Aktif, Efektif, Kreatif, dan
Menyenangkan (abbreviated as PAKEM), which means ‗Active, Effective, Creative and
Joyful Learning‘. Interestingly, in Indonesia the term ‗school-based management‘
(Manajemen Berbasis Sekolah, abbreviated as MBS) incorporates active learning, as it
46
has come to refer to an approach which includes the three ‗pillars‘ of school autonomy,
community participation and ‗PAKEM‘ (Cannon & Arlianti, 2010).
In addition, it is interesting to note the pervasive use of words of English origin in the
2007 national curriculum document, accompanied by notes on translation, including
definitions, some of which are rather vague or have lost some of the richness of meaning.
Including in this collection of adopted words are technical concepts such as: metakognisi
for metacognition, kooperatif for co-operative, kolaboratif for collaborative, kognitif for
cognitive, and aktif for active (Ministry of National Education, 2007d ).
A further example of this problem occurs when individual teachers, principals, or schools
make their own definition of a particular word, not on the basis of what the term means in
the language of origin, but on the basis of what it is thought to mean. An example of this,
from the case study, is when ‗creative‘ is interpreted to mean students being able to
choose the one correct answer from among the choices given to them in multiple choice
type of questions that are pervasive in student assessment tools in Indonesia. Another
striking example of the ‗lost in translation‘ phenomena is found in this illustration below;
a sign found on the wall of a local government office in eastern Indonesia.
Figure 1.2: Creativity at Work
47
The sign translates as follows:
CREATIVITY AT WORK
1. Arrive / Go home on time
2. Fill in the attendance list
3. Always be Consistent with tasks
4. Remember to Pray before work.
5. Do not break the Regulations / Rules
6. Report the results of work to your superior.
7. Implement your superior‘s instructions immediately.
8. Do not deviate from the norms.
(A sign in the office of the Planning & Development Body, Soppeng, 2006)
The ‗lost in translation‘ problem is a phenomenon which seems to associate with the
adoption of an imported innovation. This phenomenon is noted to have emerged in the
48
context of implementing education innovations derived from international contexts in
which English is the original language.
Compounding this problem of translating Western concepts into Indonesian, is the fact
that different innovation projects use different terms, even when they essentially aim to
do the same thing which is assist local school to improve their teaching and learning by
adopting an active learning approach. In addition to CBSA and PAKEM, the list of terms
includes Contextual Teaching and Learning (usually abbreviated as CTL and used to
refer to active learning in junior secondary schools), DDCT, (short for ‗deep dialogue and
critical thinking‘ used by a trainer interviewed in the case study) and Pembelajaran
Hakiki used to refer to authentic learning in a training program encountered in the case
study.
Societal culture is an important dimension in the dynamic of policy transfer and in the
problem of ‗lost in translation‘ described above. The cultural and political contexts of
Indonesia are thus important to this study. The following section provides a brief
overview of relevant cultural constructs.
The case study context
The Indonesian political and cultural context
The identity and culture of the Indonesian people is complex, due to the large number of
ethnic groups that inhabit the 13,000 islands which make up the nation. Indonesia is the
49
world‘s largest archipelagic state. The presence of the multi-ethnic, multi-language,
multi-religious communities among its 240 million citizens makes study of Indonesian
culture a challenging task. However, a number of studies have identified common values
held by Indonesians across ethnic and religious boundaries (Oerter, Oerter, Agostiani,
Kim, & Wibowo, 1996; Koentjaraningrat, 1985; Magnis-Suseno, 1993, 1997; Sampson,
1985).
For example, the largest and predominant group in Indonesia, the Javanese (which with
the Sundanese make up more than 50 per cent of the total population), embraces the
concept of rukun, which is the idea of harmony as a result of active orientation toward
mutual respect and adjustment to each other (Oerter, Oerter, Agostiani, Kim, & Wibowo,
1996; Koentjaraningrat, 1985; Magnis-Suseno, 1993, 1997). This, it can be argued, is a
common national value which has permeated all cultures in the nation.
Other groups in Indonesia, such as the Balinese, also value harmony and fitting-in as an
overarching norm (Sampson, 1985). Another important group, the Indonesian Chinese,
also shares similar salient values such as propriety, conformity to social hierarchy, pursuit
of social harmony (Cross, Bacon, & Morris, 2000; Pekerti & Sendjaya, 2008). The value
of rukun or social harmony is significantly influenced by Indonesia‘s collective cultural
orientation, which also leads to the interdependent self-concept that many Indonesians
have (Bachtiar, Simatupang, & Sayogyo, 1988); Cross, Bacon, & Morris, 2000; Magnis-
Suseno, 1993, 1997; Pekerti & Sendjaya, 2008; Soemarjan, 1975). For example, Farver
and Wimbarti (1995) observed that Javanese children are taught to maintain harmonious
50
social relationships, screen extreme emotions from others, and to display obedience and
sharing.
In general, Noesjirwan (1978) conceptualized Indonesian identity as being sociable
(maintaining friendly relationships with everyone), emphasizing the community rather
than the individual (i.e., individuals are expected to conform to the wishes of the group)
and maintaining a steady state, a harmonious life style (smooth, graceful and restrained
behaviour). These conceptualizations were corroborated by French, Pidada and Victor
(2005) as well as Magnis-Suseno (1997), who described Javanese and Sundanese culture
as emphasizing interpersonal harmony, maintenance of social hierarchies, politeness, and
group conformity. Magnis-Suseno (1997) explained that Indonesians, in general, view
self-enhancement as a means to promote self-interest, hence, it is disruptive to social
harmony to promote self-interest.
In summary, ―...anthropologists have described Javanese and Javanese-influenced
Indonesian social structure as being somewhat less focused on specific friendships and
more focused on integration into the community and social network‖ (French, Pidada &
Victor, 2005; p. 305). This conclusion confirms Noesjirwan‘s (1978) observation that
Indonesian adults believe that it was better to maintain harmonious group relationships
than to develop a few close friendships. French and colleagues‘ (2005) findings also
confirm the predictions that Indonesians valued instrumental aid in relationship with
others (i.e., mutual assistance among members of a community) higher than self-
enhancement, and less exclusive in social interaction with their friends. Scholars have
51
argued that instrumental aid is an important feature of interpersonal relationships and
community cohesion in Indonesia, particularly in the form of mutual assistance among
members of a community and shared involvement to complete joint tasks (Magnis-
Suseno, 1997). This view is also consistent with the notion that individuals with
interdependent-self construct ‗are motivated to find a way to fit-in with relevant others, to
fulfil and create obligation, and in general to become part of various interpersonal
relationships‘ (Markus & Kitayama, 1991, p. 227).
In order to understand Indonesian cultural values in this context, a consideration of the
political culture of The New Order government is necessary. It has been argued that
Suharto‘s New Order government co-opted deeply rooted cultural values of Java and
Indonesia to strengthen its thirty-year grip on power, to reinforce a culture of compliance
and to stifle dissent (Vatikiotis, 1993). The New Order political machine successfully
manipulated traditional cultural values to promote obedience, a sense of duty, and unity
over diversity (Dhakidae, 2003; Jatmiko, 2004; Magnis-Susena, 1997; Mulder, 1994;
Pradipto, 2007; Vatikiotis, 1993). This dynamic is evident in the history of educational
reform in Indonesia.
One of the consequences of this history and of the ‗Javanisation‘ of the Indonesian
government bureaucracy is that cultural values deriving principally from Javanese culture
are common throughout the government system; including the education system.
Although regional autonomy policies now favour greater indigenous participation in
governance and government in remote regions such as North Maluku, nonetheless, the
52
culture of the bureaucracy is steeped in Javanese values. Many of these do not differ in
essence from other local Indonesian traditions. In this section, a number of relevant
cultural constructs are discussed.
Studies of cultural traditions in other Asian societies, suggest a similar set of core values.
In a study of reform in India, Clarke (2003) identified four relevant cultural constructs:
(1) a shared holistic worldview, (2) conception of instruction as duty, (3) structural and
qualitative hierarchy, and (4) knowledge as collectively accumulated. These constructs
form part of the broader meaning system underlying classroom practice in India. All are
relevant to a consideration of educational reform both in India and in Indonesia. The first
two are described as conducive to reform and the last two as inhibiting reform (Clarke,
2001, 2003).
A shared holistic worldview supports the acceptance of regulation. Embedded in this
view is an assumption that individuals are not autonomous but linked together in an
interdependent system. Duty-based cultures value the performance of duty rather than
individual thinking or action as important. Hierarchy and authority help to define duty.
The social framework is defined by structural and qualitative hierarchy. Both apply to the
teacher; structural hierarchy relates to authority in the classroom and qualitative hierarchy
relates to an assumption that the teacher is more knowledgeable than the student. Student-
teacher relationships demonstrate, at least superficially, the respect, esteem and even
reverence demanded of a novice towards an expert. Knowledge is seen as collectively
53
accumulated, attested and transferred. The concept of an individual ‗constructing‘
knowledge is alien (Clarke, 2001, 2003).
Javanese and Indonesian values are strikingly similar to those described by Clarke (2003)
for Indian culture above, thanks to a common cultural heritage. The Javanese worldview
embodies additional, related cultural constructs, including manut lan miturut, which
means obedience, and ewuh pekewuh to refer to the discomfort one should feel in relation
to controversy or conflict and which effectively discourages people from bringing up
sensitive issues in the open (Dardjowidjojo, 2001).
These two constructs play an important role in much social interaction including that in
schools. The shared holistic worldview common to India, Indonesia and other Asian
cultures also concerns social order which was favourable to the New Order regime. This
worldview originally had a spiritual tone in its Javanese context but, in Mulder‘s words,
shifted into a view about social order emphasising unity over diversity (1994, p. 35).
Magnis-Suseno (1997) describes the following three basic principles as the most relevant
in the Javanese worldview: (1) the principle of conflict avoidance, (2) the principle of
respect, and (3) the ethics of social harmony. All of these principles manifest in various
cultural constructs that govern the life of both individuals and the group. One instance is
the concept of rukun as a manifestation of the conflict avoidance principle. Rukun refers
to the common desire to live in peace with each other or, to use Magnis-Suseno‘s words,
to feel oneself to be in a state of harmony (Magnis-Suseno, 1997 p. 42). Rukun is
54
commonly expressed in the willingness to compromise, which is often taken to mean
accommodation to the point of conformity, being cooperative, mutual acceptance, and
maintaining calm (Mulder, 1994). Rukun is the ideal situation that should be achieved
above all else, so it prevails in all relationships, including relationships at schools. Rukun
is desirable and lends itself to a view which prioritises the maintenance of harmony – a
value which was also successfully promoted by the New Order government as a view
about the nation.
As a nation, Indonesia is seen as a family (kekeluargaan) or at least guided by the
principles of family life. Relevant concepts which fit under this rubric include sharing a
burden (gotong royong), consensus decision-making (musyawarah), and subordination of
the individual to the common unanimous decision (mufakat). As seen from a Western
perspective:
Indonesians … tend to think of a country as a family with citizens as the members and the
government as the head. The original statement of the national ideology (Five Principles:
Pancasila) included ‗family-ness‘ (kekeluargaan) as one of the principles. In the final
formulation, the fifth principle became ‗social justice for all the people.‘ The Constitution
re-established this link in paragraph 33, entitled Social Welfare. Clause 1 states that ‗the
[national] economy will be organized based on the fundamental principle of family-ness‘
and the explanation to this paragraph states that this is the ‗basis for democracy‘. (United
States Agency for International Development, 2007, p. i)
Through its political and bureaucratic machinery, of which education formed a part, the
New Order Regime was successful in instilling many of these values across the nation.
55
The adoption of Pendidikan Moral Pancasila as the curriculum for citizenship education,
from primary to university levels, is evidence of this mechanism (Bjork, 2003; Dhakidae,
2003; Jatmiko, 2004; Kalijernih, 2005; Leigh, 1999).
An example of how some of the above constructs have become entrenched, creating a
noticeable impact in education has been outlined by Dardjowidjojo (2001). His work
analyses the cultural constraints in the Javanese worldview, with particular reference to
(1) Manut-lan-miturut or total obedience, (2) Ewuh-pekewuh; discomfort discussing
controversial issues, holding different opinions, questioning the words of elders or
disagreeing with them, and (3) Sabda Pendita Ratu a belief that elders or leaders should
be obeyed and an acceptance that their behaviours reflect the truth and must not be
challenged. These deeply embedded cultural attitudes also reinforce the disturbing habit
of being unwilling to admit any fault, mistake or wrongdoing (Dardjowidjojo, 2001).
Although it lacks an empirical base, Dardjowidjojo‘s conceptual analysis provides a good
basis for a study of relevant cultural constructs. Dardjowidjojo (2001) argues that these
cultural constructs have manifested in a debilitating situation which constrains the
working relationships of people in educational institutions including schools and
universities. In the higher education context for example, he asserts that it is an
expectation, on the part of the superior, in this case a professor or lecturer, not to have
their words challenged by their students. Similarly, students are expected not to challenge
their professors‘ thinking. Doing so would constitute disrespect. Furthermore, this kind of
56
expectation also extends to the level of the rector, whose words must not be challenged
by deans, and so on down the ranks.
A recent analysis pertinent to this cultural aspect is in the work of Hofstede and Hofstede
(2005). Although Hofstede and Hofstede‘s (2005) notion of national culture is somewhat
limited in the Indonesian context given the diversity of Indonesia‘s cultures and ethnic
groups, nonetheless the notions of power distance and communal society as exemplified
in this work are useful. Hofstede and Hofstede (2005) define power distance as the extent
to which the less powerful members of institutions and organizations within a country
expect and accept that power is distributed unequally. In a small power-distance situation,
such as may be found in Australia, for example, the hierarchical system is regarded as
just an inequality of roles, established for convenience, and roles may be changed.
Organizations typically are more decentralized. In the small power-distance situation, the
educational process is more likely to be student centred, promoting student initiative. In
this cultural context, it is expected that children will make uninvited interventions in
class, ask questions; even challenge their teachers.
In a large-power-distance situation, such as Indonesia, teachers are treated with respect.
As one would expect, given the cultural framework of Indonesia described above, the
educational process is typically teacher-centred. Teaching is one-way, top-down; with the
teacher initiating all communication. Students speak up in class only when invited to.
Teachers are rarely contradicted or criticised in public and are treated with deference
even outside school.
57
The worldview found in Javanese and Indonesian societies and reinforced through the
government and education systems throughout the country, gives rise to the principle of
conflict avoidance which is manifested in a number of cultural constructs described
above. The hierarchical nature of Indonesian societies is another common cultural
construct. As asserted by Hofstede and Hofstede (2005), this hierarchy marks the
difference between many Asian and western nations. Hallinger (2005) also found that the
hierarchical view of relationships in Asian societies tends to perpetuate a top-down policy
making process, which disregards the realities of local actors.
North Maluku
The province of North Maluku consists of the northern portion of the Muluccas island
group in eastern Indonesia. North Maluku consists of nearly 400 islands, fewer than 70 of
which are inhabited. The total land area of the province is approximately 45,000 square
kilometres. The largest island is Halmahera, with an area of 17,780 square kilometres
(Wikapedia, 2013). The region is mountainous in character and includes active volcanos.
The study focuses on four districts: South Halmahara, West Halmahara, Ternate and
Tidore. The islands of Ternate and Tidore are small but historically and politically
significant. The capital city of the province is located on the island of Ternate. These
islands are known as the original ‗Spice Islands‘ and are central to the history of
Portuguese and Dutch colonialism in the region.
58
The total population of North Maluku is just over one million: 1,035,478 according to the
2010 census (National Statistics Centre, 2010). Of these, approximately 75 per cent are
Muslims and 25 per cent Christians. In the years 1999-2000, Maluku and North Maluku
experienced widespread sectarian conflict, in which Christians and Muslims fought a
bloody religious-based civil war (Hermkens & Timmer, 2011; Wilson, 2005). The trauma
and consequences of this were still evident at the time of the study and came up in a
number of interviews and discussions. Post-conflict issues included problems with
teacher distribution. Displaced individuals and communities created imbalance in the
system. Some schools were reportedly over-staffed because teachers from schools in
other areas had returned to their home towns and villages as a result of conflict. Some
others were understaffed and over-populated with children for the same reasons. Teacher
mismatch was a problem too. For example, one of the two schools studied in depth in
Tidore had more subject specialist teachers than the number of class teachers. One of the
classes observed was a Science class taught by a Physical Education teacher. These
problems were not evident in many of the case study schools.
Although the majority of the population of North Maluku are indigenous Maluccans,
many of those engaged in business, government, or professions, including teaching, are
Javanese who received their education in Java. A variety of local languages are spoken,
with Bahasa Indonesia the common language of government, business and education.
The provincial capital, Ternate City, has a population of 185,660. The district of Tidore
Islands has a population of 89,510, West Halmahera, 100,150 and South Halmahera
198,030 (National Statistics Centre, 2010). The province is distant from Jakarta and the
59
political and commercial centres of Java. The economy is dominated by agriculture and
fishing, with smaller manufacturing and trade sectors. The plantation industry forms a
large part of the agricultural sector. The people are mostly poor and live traditional lives
in rural communities. As described in the following chapter, the case study sampled
schools in urban and rural communities.
The following two maps illustrate the geographical context of the case study. The first
map shows the topographical context of North Maluku Province and its location within
the Indonesian archipelago. The second shows the administrative areas, including the four
case study districts: West Halmahara (Kabupaten Halmahara Barat), Tidore (Kota Tidore
Kepulauan), Ternate City (Kota Ternate), and South Halmahara (Kabupaten Halmahara
Selatan).
60
Figure 1.3: Map of North Maluku & Maluku showing Case Study Sites
(Wikipedia, 2013)
West Halmahara Ternate,
Tidore, South Halmahara
61
Figure 1.4: Map of North Maluku showing District Divisions
(Indonesia Updates, 2013)
62
Figure 1.5: Tidore & Ternate Figure 1.6: The port at Ternate
Figure 1.7: School children, Jailolo Figure 1.8: Ketinting transport, Bacan
Figure 1.9: Bathing at the beach near the school, Bacan
Figure 1.10: Discussion with teachers, Wayamiga, Bacan
63
The aims of the research
Research into the implementation of reforms at school and classroom level in Indonesia is
very limited. There is a serious lack of independent research (Cannon, 2012). Most of the
studies that exist were funded by international donors and/or government. Unfortunately,
government, donors, and their implementing partners all share a common interest in
reporting good news. Projects are short-term and funding for new projects is dependent
on good results. This creates an agenda which constrains researchers and limits the
objectivity of research outcomes. Moreover, much of the serious research is funded by
the World Bank, and tends to treat education as an economic function of government,
rather than an exercise in opening the minds of young people (Bjork, 2005;
Mangunwijaya, 2003). There is also a body of local research, conducted mostly by post-
graduate Indonesian students. However, this is limited by the research capacity of the
universities, scope and funding. The tendency in this research is to focus on surveys and
quantitative studies. There is also a tendency for the research to be Java-centric, focussing
on the heavily populated island of Java where many of the universities exist. Little
research has been conducted in the more isolated eastern islands, which are poorly served
in terms of government infrastructure, education and information.
The research described in this thesis is a policy implementation case study using teachers
and their professional development as units of analysis. The study investigates local
responses toward a national policy requiring local stakeholders to adopt active learning
principles within a context of curriculum change. It explores the complexity of change
processes within and between various policy actors, focussing on implementation at the
64
level of classroom and school, and the role of local agencies, especially the school cluster
system and teacher working groups. The case study was conducted in a group of teachers,
schools, school clusters and districts in the remote province of North Maluku in eastern
Indonesia. This case study is supported by a broader analysis of the history and
development of policy on education reform and active learning at the national level.
The aims of the study are to contribute to the national dialogue on policy and
development of education in Indonesia and, at the same time, to contribute to the
development of the theory of educational change, specifically in the context of a
developing nation.
The goals of the study are: (1) to investigate how teachers implement the principles of
active learning in the classrooms - in the way teaching and learning interactions are
conducted, (2) to explore what impedes teachers in adopting these principles in the class,
and (3) to contextualise these impediments in terms of three perspectives, the technical,
cultural, and political.
Much of the research on curriculum implementation and the reform of teaching in
developing countries, including Indonesia, has focussed its investigation on what may be
termed technical variables. Such variables include planning of curriculum content,
teachers‘ work lives, factors affecting teaching and learning, teachers‘ professional
development and so on. Whilst these investigations have no doubt offered something for
improvement in their respective areas (Iemjinda, 1998; Jalinus, 1997) little attention has
65
been given to studying the non-technical variables suspected to play a big role in creating
the discrepancies between policy and practice commonly found in Indonesian schools
(Bjork, 2005). House and McQuillan‘s (1998) theory of school reform and program
implementation suggests that studies of the success or failure of many reform programs
should consider three perspectives: (1) technical, (2) political, and (3) cultural. This study
applies this theory in the context of a policy implementation process in Indonesian
schools. In addition the realities within which teachers work must be taken into serious
consideration in order for reform to be successfully implemented (O‘Sullivan, 2002).
From a personal perspective, the impetus for undertaking this study was the opportunity
to engage in a professional role as a researcher at a time when the Indonesian education
system is still experimenting with active learning and a new curriculum in the context of
a newly decentralised education system, and in the broader context of the national reform
movement, following the end of the New Order regime in the late 1990s. The
contribution that a serious piece of research can make, when conducted by an ‗insider‘
with the perspective of an Indonesian teacher, is important.
The research questions
The study addresses two research questions:
1. How do teachers translate active learning methodology in the classroom?
2. What factors impede the implementation of active learning?
66
The first question asks to what extent was the policy on active learning implemented in
the case study schools? The second question is more complex, and asks how was the
implementation of active learning pedagogy in the school contexts mediated by the policy
process; the context of the district education system; and the particular schools to which it
was transferred? This research question required an examination of a range of data from
policy actors and documents in order to describe policy and contextual influences. The
success of reform in education, especially in changing pedagogy, is strongly linked to
teacher professional development (Darling-Hammond & McLaughlin, 1995). The role of
teacher in-service teacher training and especially the local school cluster system is
explored in depth.
The research approach
In order to answer these questions, a mixed-method, qualitative, case study approach was
adopted. The case selected was a group of teachers, schools and school clusters in three
districts in the remote eastern Indonesian province of North Maluku. The data collection
phase of the study took place in 2007. Data analysis was conducted in the following
years. Four main data gathering methods were employed: (1) document analysis, (2)
survey questionnaire, (3) semi-structured interview and informal discussions, (4) field
visits to schools and class observation.
The mixed-method approach enabled the researcher to collect data from a wide range of
sources on different aspects of the study. This approach also enabled the triangulation of
data and findings (Miles & Huberman, 1994; Stake, 1995; Yin, 2003) and increases
67
validity and confidence in the findings. Both quantitative and qualitative methods were
used for data analysis.
Conclusion
In this chapter, the context for the case study has been laid out. The Indonesian basic
education system has been developing since national independence in 1945. Throughout
this period, the system has been highly centralized, serving to unify the nation, with one
language and one political ideology for all. Since the end of the Suharto period in the late
1990s, a broad reform process has been implemented by a succession of governments
across all sectors. In the education sector, this has resulted in the decentralization of
education management and governance to district level and, under a policy of school-
based management and school-based curriculum, to school level.
Two curriculum policies were introduced successively in the mid-2000s: a national
competency-based curriculum (KBK) in 2004 and a school-based curriculum approach
(KTSP) in 2006. The first was trialled but never formally adopted. It nonetheless
influenced policy and practice at local levels. The second was set out in a series of
national education standard documents, which included standards for curriculum content,
standards for graduating at each year level (basic competencies) and standards for the
teaching and learning process (pedagogy). At the time of the case study all of these
policies were in the process of being interpreted in schools and classrooms. None were
clearly articulated or understood at the local level.
68
In the next chapter, the literature relevant to this study is surveyed. This is followed, in
Chapter Three, by a description of the research methodology. Chapter Four describes the
results of the case study. Chapter Five provides a discussion of these results and places
the study and its findings in the theoretical context of perspectives of change: technical,
political and cultural. The final chapter then briefly summarizes the significance of the
study and makes recommendations for the future.
69
Chapter 2: Literature Review
70
Introduction
The aim of this chapter is to review the existing scholarship and available body of
knowledge in order to ascertain how other scholars have investigated, theorised and
conceptualised the relevant issues, what they have found empirically, what instruments
they have used, and to what effect (Anderson, 2001; Evans, 1995; Hart, 1998).
Chapter One laid out the background to the research, research origin, research problem
and the aims of the study. This provided the reader with information as to the rationale
and motivation for engaging in this research. A brief description of the research
methodology employed was given as well as an overview of the study. The significant
role of teachers and non-teachers as change agents, and the barriers that they encounter as
change agents, also was mentioned.
This is a study that focusses on teachers and what they did, and other local agents of
change including school principals, supervisors and district educational personnel and
how they responded to the reform. It also investigates whether the changes intended by
the Government were achieved and, further, in what way they were or were not achieved
and what aspects of the process facilitated or hindered the reform. It is important to note
that this study is not a study on policy alone, nor of educational change, teaching and
learning, teachers and their professional development, curriculum, or school reform, but a
holistic examination of the initiative. However, knowledge of each of these aspects is
critical in order to map out the factors that may facilitate or impede change. In addition,
other factors, including the role of context, are critical in reaching an understanding of
71
how change in classrooms occurred. In other words, in order to establish a background
for this research and to link it to research in other fields of education and other
disciplines, a broad review of the literature is necessary.
The main purpose of conducting this review is to provide a conceptual framework within
which the research questions posed in Chapter One can be answered. How this study is
situated within the theory of educational change and development was briefly explained
in Chapter One. The conceptual framework for this study is based on the theory of House
and McQuillan (1998), and considers three perspectives of change for the study of
educational innovation: the technical, the political and the cultural.
The chapter begins with a discussion of the conceptual framework, explaining the three
perspectives of change and is followed by a brief overview of the literature on active
learning, which provides a definition of active learning for this thesis. A section on each
of the three perspectives of change then follows. The Technical Perspective section
surveys the literature on teachers and their professional development and on the
implementation of active learning. The Political Perspective section focuses on the
literature on educational policy and education change.
In each of these, the review includes major themes that have been developed in the
literature, particularly those in the context of developed nations. Relevant studies
conducted in developing nations, in particular in the Indonesian context, also are
presented whenever possible. The study of teachers, their professional development and
72
the linkage between teachers‘ professional development and successful policy
implementation are well established (Darling-Hammond & McLaughlin, 1995; Dembele
& Schwille, 2007; Villegas-Reimers, 2003). International scholarship on educational
change and policy has been well documented. The complexities, multiple actors with
competing and sometimes conflicting agendas, are common features (Ball, 1990; Taylor,
Rizvi, Lingard & Henry, 1997).
Following this, literature on the role of culture in education reform and the relevant socio-
cultural factors in Asia and Indonesia are reviewed. The chapter then concludes with a
brief summary as a prelude to the following chapter on the methodological approach
taken to the study.
It is not feasible to review every topic relevant to education policy and change, and the
exclusion of any topics does not mean that they are unimportant: not everything could be
included here. In the following section of this chapter, the conceptual framework which
guides the analysis in this chapter and again in Chapter Five is presented. The focus of
this study and the literature review is guided by this framework.
Several searches were conducted using on-line databases including ERIC, Google and
Google Scholars. Searches initially focused on the broad themes of change, policy
implementation, pedagogy, curriculum implementation, education policy, comparative
education, education and globalization, and cultural studies. In addition to a great many
articles, reports and studies, conventional library searches at the University of Tasmania
73
identified a number of key references, including Alexandar (2000), Fullan (2001),
Guthrie (2011), and Marsh and Willis (2004). Conventional library searches at the State
University of Yogyakarta identified a number of Indonesian studies unavailable online,
including a substantial volume edited by Supriadi (2003). These key references led to
further references for many studies. One final source of references was the researcher‘s
professional network. Many books, articles and, especially, project reports were
identified through this network. Some are in the public domain and available online,
some are not.
A conceptual framework: Three perspectives of change
House (1979), and subsequently House and McQuillan (1998), proposed three
perspectives for the analysis of education reform: (1) the technological perspective, (2)
the political perspective, and (3) the cultural perspective.
House asserts that technological perspectives dominated the discourse on curriculum
innovation in the 1970s. The argument of this thesis is that technological or technical
perspectives dominate the research paradigm and indeed the public policy process in
Indonesia today. It will be argued in this chapter that the dominance of this perspective is,
in part, a result of the policy borrowing process, whereby technical innovations are
borrowed from the West and, with the support of international donors, are implemented
in Indonesia – without the cultural context necessary for successful implementation. The
design and subsequent evaluation of the pedagogical reform program in Indonesia, it will
be argued, were driven by the political and economic agendas of international donors and
74
their government partners, and not, as was the case when the innovations originally
emerged in the West, by a range of context-specific cultural and political factors as well
as technical. The original context for House and McQuillan‘s (1998) model was schools
and districts in North America. This thesis thus further develops the theory by taking
House and McQuillan‘s three perspectives, expanding the meaning to include higher
level political perspectives and broader cultural perspectives, and applying this
conceptual framework in a new setting, that of Indonesia, a developing nation.
This political perspective is necessary to offer an alternative explanation for many so-
called ‗failed innovations‘. This perspective interprets innovation problems as primarily
political, in which conflicts and compromises have to be made among what House called
‗factional groups‘; the curriculum developers, teachers, administrators, parents and
government. Using this perspective to make sense of the unfolding events surrounding
policy development and subsequent implementation in Indonesian primary schools may
help explain the failure of reform programs.
The cultural perspective is an anthropological approach to studying educational
innovation. It emphasizes the importance of the context of the innovation. The
perspective captures the social-cultural milieu of the classroom, school, and community.
It will be argued that culture is critical to an understanding of education and education
reform in Indonesia – and particularly the differences between the cultures of the West,
where active learning originated, and the traditional societal cultures of Indonesia along
with the expression of these cultures in schools, government and the education system.
75
Building on this tri-parte framework, this thesis adopts a conceptual framework
embodying three perspectives of change, which are somewhat broader than intended by
House and McQuillan: (1) the technical perspective, which for the purposes of this study
includes technical aspects of teacher professional development and classroom practice,
(2) the political perspective, which for the purposes of this study includes the global
politics of international aid and policy transfer, the national politics of policy (including
curriculum) development and local politics involving the power relationships between
school supervisors, principals, teachers, and (3) the cultural perspective, which for this
study is taken to include societal culture as well as the subsets of organizational and
educational culture.
The chapter is organized around these three perspectives, with literature relating to each
of them discussed in turn. Prior to this, the concept and definition of active learning are
discussed. An understanding of active learning is necessary for answering the first
research question: how do teachers translate active learning methodology in the
classroom? The following sections on the three perspectives of change are more focussed
on providing the framework for answering the second research question: What factors
impede the implementation of active learning? As is evident in the discussion below,
each of the three perspectives is interrelated, thus political aspects appear in the
discussion of the technical perspective and cultural perspectives and vice-versa. The
following figure illustrates this conceptual framework, which is applied both to the
76
analysis of literature in the present chapter and, subsequently, to the analysis of case
study findings in Chapter Five.
Figure 2.1: Conceptual framework
Defining active learning
In this section, the concept of active learning is unpacked and defined for the purpose of
this thesis. The first problem lies in the interpretation of ‗active‘ in the concept of ‗active
learning‘. What does active in ‗active learning‘ refer to: mental or physical activities - or
both? What does mentally active mean in terms of class activities? What student activities
other than sitting, listening, and copying should take place in the class? All of these
questions beg clear answers and a clear interpretation of the term ‗active‘ in this context
is therefore critical. This study is not a study of active learning per se but a study of the
adoption of active learning in Indonesian primary schools. In this section, a range of
interpretations and definitions is surveyed and active learning is defined for the purposes
of this study.
It is not possible to provide universally accepted definitions for all of the vocabulary
associated with active learning, since writers and researchers in the field interpret terms
The cultural perspective The political perspective The technical
perspective
Implementation of active
learning
77
differently from one another. However, for an innovation to be adopted and successfully
implemented, a shared understanding of what a core element means is critical. Without a
common agreement and a shared definition of this core element, the clarity of the
innovation is compromised (Rogers, 1995). How can ‗active‘ in active learning be
interpreted? Anthony (1996) identifies four possible alternatives interpretation of ‗active‘
in active learning:
1. Active to denote the amount of autonomy and control of learning (by children),
2. Active to denote the quality of mental experiences which increase insight,
3. Active to denote the amount of children‘s engagement in learning,
4. Active to denote physical activities of children when learning.
The two key dimensions in these interpretations are the cognitive and the behavioural.
Active learning is defined in Indonesia‘s national school curriculum (Permendiknas No. 41,
2007) as follows:
Belajar Aktif: Kegiatan mengolah pengalaman dan atau praktik dengan cara
mendengar, membaca, menulis, mendiskusikan, merefleksi rangsangan, dan
memecahkan masalah.
Active learning: Activities to manage experiences and or practices with listening,
reading, writing, discussion, reflection on stimulation, and problem solving
approaches. (Ministry of National Education, 2007d, p. 10)
How does this definition fare on the above four alternatives? This definition incorporates
the kinds of activities to be categorised as active, that is: managing experiences, listening,
78
reading, writing, discussion, reflection and problem solving. In this definition the control
of learning is not clearly stated; is it the teacher or the child who has the control? One
does not see explicit mention of children‘s engagement and mental activity in this
definition. While the definition focusses more on the behavioural than the cognitive
dimension, the proposed activities could implicitly denote these two elements of active
learning.
According to Bonwell and Eison (1991), active learning is distinguished from other
teaching methods by several characteristics. In essence, active learning strategies:
1. involve students in more than just listening,
2. place greater emphasis on developing students' skills versus simply
transmitting information,
3. engage students in hands-on activities (e.g. reading, writing, discussing),
many of which require the use of higher-order thinking skills (e.g. analysis,
synthesis, application, evaluation), and
4. provide students an avenue for exploring their own ideas, attitudes, and beliefs
about the subject matter (Bonwell & Eison, 1991, p. 2).
In sum, active learning "...involves students in doing things and thinking about the things
they are doing" (Bonwell & Eison, 1991, p. 2). This addresses both the cognitive and
behavioural aspects.
79
A conceptual framework to assist in the design of activities that maximize students‘
intellectual engagement proposed by Bonwell (2000) is useful. In this conceptual
framework, active learning is seen as a continuum in which neither end should be
considered to be ‗better‘ or more ‗desirable‘ than the other. The further students move
towards complex tasks, the greater the engagement the students have in their learning.
Teachers, in this model, need to create the conditions which move students along toward
the right end of the continuum. Whilst this continuum may be seen as an
oversimplification of a complex construct, it does provide both a visual and conceptual
model that is useful. Simple tasks are defined as short and often highly structured, while
complex tasks are of longer duration - perhaps the whole class period or longer - and are
usually carefully planned. If the task is complex, and students are involved with the
planning and the structure, giving them autonomy in the design, the task process and the
outcome, engagement is high.
Notwithstanding its potential usefulness, Bonwell‘s conceptual framework does suffer (as
he admits) from being over-simplistic. It was designed for the context of higher
education. It does not differentiate or address the behavioural and cognitive dimensions
of active learning in detail. For these reasons it is not so useful for analysis of teaching
and learning practice in primary classrooms, which are characterized by complexity and
change. It is limited in its value for use as a professional development tool, as it is not
able to help teachers to understand fully the dynamics of active learning in the classroom
context.
80
Focussing more on the cognitive and affective dimensions, students‘ engagement may
also be defined as the core element in active learning. Active learning is then defined as
any instructional method that engages students in the learning process (Prince, 2004).
Here ‗active‘ denotes students‘ engagement in the learning process. This definition
requires that students undertake meaningful activities and think about what they are
doing.
In one sense, active learning is an umbrella term that refers to several models of
instruction that focus the responsibility of learning on learners. Given this, several related
concepts are relevant in this discussion: (1) ‗collaborative learning‘ refers to an
instructional method in which students work together in small groups toward a common
goal; (2) ‗co-operative learning‘ refers to a structured form of group work where students
pursue common goals; (3) ‗problem-based learning‘ is an instructional method where
relevant problems are introduced at the beginning of the instruction cycle and used to
provide the context and motivation for the learning that follows. In order for children‘s
learning to be meaningful, teaching needs to be through experience in a context that is
relevant to them. It has been suggested also that students should be engaged actively with
the material, be physically and cognitively active (Bonwell & Eison, 1991; Mayer, 2004).
Active-learning (or student-centred) pedagogy is a model of teaching that stresses
minimal teacher lecturing or direct transmission of factual knowledge, less whole-class
activity, more small group activities that engage students in discovery learning or
problem solving, and student questions and discussion (Ginsburg, 2010; Leu & Price-
Rom, 2006).
81
Active-learning pedagogies may also be contrasted with ‗formal‘ or ‗direct instruction‘
which emphasizes teacher lecturing or direct transmission of factual knowledge, coupled
with ‗recitation and drill‘ (Ginsburg, 2010). Such ‗classic‘ or ‗traditional‘ approaches are
still the norm in Indonesia. The two different approaches can be contrasted on both
behavioural and cognitive dimensions (Ginsburg, 2010; Mayer, 2004). The behavioural
dimension of active-learning pedagogies focuses on the degree to which instructional
practices enable students to engage in verbal or physical behaviour, while the cognitive
dimension highlights the degree to which teaching strategies enable students to engage in
various forms/levels of thinking.
A study linking teacher quality, children‘s engagement and academic achievement in
China reported that it is useful to define teacher quality by referring to classroom
practice, rather than, as is often the case, defining quality in instrumental and quantitative
terms; ‗...easy-to-measure and easy-to-manipulate inputs‘ such as years of teaching
experience, salary and qualifications. Teachers can create quality by effectively engaging
students in learning activities and this is not something that is easy to capture through
traditional quantitative measures, such as commonly used by donors like the World Bank
and government policy makers (Sargent & Hannum, 2009).
To summarize, for the purposes of this study, active learning is defined as an approach to
teaching and learning in which students‘ engagement, either mental or physical, in the
process of learning becomes its core element.
82
This definition incorporates the behavioural and cognitive dimensions; it allows that
collaborative learning, co-operative learning and problem-based learning approaches may
also be categorised as ‗active learning‘ for their efficacy in creating engaged learning.
Traditional approaches such as students copying notes from the blackboard, sitting
quietly while teachers are lecturing them, doing homework in the form of making copious
notes, memorising facts such as important dates, name of capital cities and so on are not
considered active. Active learning in this study is also viewed as a continuum which
denotes a process and therefore allows teachers to be seen as progressing within the
continuum.
The technical perspective
In this section the literature on educational change, teacher professional development and
the linkages between these are surveyed. The literature on pedagogical change or change
in teaching practices and on issues associated with the implementation of pedagogical
change at school and classroom levels also is discussed.
In this context, it is important to clarify the definition for these words which are
commonly used interchangeably by different authors; innovation, change, and reform: the
term ‗reform‘ refers to substantial change over a long period of time, whereas
‗innovation‘ normally refers to an individual program or change within a time period
(Marsh, 2004).
83
In House and McQuillan‘s (1998) terms, the technological perspective ―...takes
production as its root metaphor. Examples include concepts like input-output,
specification of goals and tasks, flow diagrams, incentives and performance assessment....
The parent discipline is economics and the primary concern is efficiency.‖ (p. 198).
Indonesian Government policy documents discussed in the previous chapter and the
reports of the World Bank discussed below in the present chapter, adopt this perspective.
The key element in the design of education reform in Indonesia is the quality of teachers.
The discussion focusses on investing in the professional development of teachers in order
to improve the overall standard and quality of education. The government‘s strategy for
implementing active learning in the context of new curricula is the professional
development of teachers. The key technical issue considered in this thesis in relation to
the implementation of Indonesia‘s policy on active learning is thus teacher professional
development. It is thus also important to clarify the definitions of ‗professional
development‘ and ‗in-service training‘: for the purposes of this thesis, the term
‗professional development‘ refers to a wide range of a activities intended to develop a
teachers‘ professional knowledge and capacity (training, individual study, observation,
discussion and so on), whereas the term ‗in-service training‘ refers to a more narrow set
of activities, specifically training events designed to improve teachers‘ knowledge and
capacity (Villegas-Reimers, 2003).
In this section, three questions guide the literature review, namely: (1) Does professional
development have an impact on teachers? (2) Does it have an impact on student learning?
and (3) Does professional development have an impact on the success of educational
84
reform? In order to investigate these questions, consideration is first given to the views
that are commonly held about teachers and teaching, as these impact on the provision of
professional development. The main purpose of surveying the literature in this section is
to identify the characteristics of professional development which are most likely to
support the successful implementation of reforms in pedagogy and lead to improved
learning outcomes.
Views of teaching and the status of teachers
To answer the research questions posed in this study, an understanding of how teachers
learn is needed. Some define teaching as an ‗art‘. Some see it as a ‗craft‘ that can be
influenced by technique and professional judgment. To some, teachers are ‗technicians‘
that need skills to perform predictable routines. To others, teachers are ‗professionals‘
who need to make judgments and apply highly specialized knowledge for students to
achieve high standards in specific contexts (Smyth, 1998).
It appears that the metaphor of teaching as an art derives from the supposedly
indeterminate skills that are sometimes believed to be associated with the process of
teaching. The concept of teaching as an art is associated with the idea that good teachers
are born with these skills rather than acquire them through education or training. When
policy-makers think of teaching as an art, little is done to promote the professional
development of teachers, as usually those who believe teaching is an art, also believe
people are ‗born‘ teachers (as opposed to developed as teachers) and their development as
85
teachers is ‗natural‘ (as opposed to planned and systematically promoted) (Clement &
Vanderberghe, 2000; Delamont, 1995).
Debates continue about whether teachers are professionals (as opposed to simply
‗technicians‘), and whether teaching is a profession (as opposed to just an ‗occupation‘)
(Smyth, 1998). However, for practical purposes and in order for schools to meet the
demands of our times, teachers need to be perceived as, and in many cases need to
become, professionals. Thinking of teachers as artists or technicians, for example, does
not promote their professional development in the same way as if we think of teachers as
professionals. Therefore, teachers‘ professional development, a lifelong activity, should
be aimed at consolidating this professional role, enabling them to teach effectively at high
levels to all children and enabling them to grow and adopt new roles with higher status
within the teaching profession (Hoyle, 1995; Smyth, 1998).
In this context, Alexander‘s (2000) five-nation study of culture and pedagogy in England,
France, India, Russia and the USA is pertient. Alexander (2009) comments on the neglect
of pedagogy in comparative education and proposes the use of a comprehensive
conceptual framework for a systematic educational analysis located historically and
culturally. He identifies six versions of teaching:
1. Transmission (the passing on of information and skill), which was common to all
five countries but particularly apparent in mainstream formalistic Indian tradition.
2. Disciplinary induction (providing access to a culture's established ways of enquiry
and making sense), which was a feature particularly in France.
86
3. Democracy in action (in which knowledge is reflexive rather than received, and
teachers and students are joint enquirers).
4. Facilitation (respecting individual differences and responding to developmental
readiness and need), which was found particularly in the USA.
5. Acceleration (outpacing 'natural' development rather than following it), which was
a feature of Russian education.
6. Technique (emphasising structure, graduation, economy, conciseness and
rapidity).
As is described below in the section on the cultural perspective in this chapter, teaching in
Indonesia is typically viewed, in Alexander‘s terms, as ‗transmission‘, though it appears
that policy makers increasingly see it as ‗technique‘. The change in perceptions about the
status of teachers is on-going in Indonesia, where teachers and teaching are considered
simultaneously as public servants (Bjork, 2005), as workers performing a technical job,
and as professionals (Surakhmad, 2009). As in Australia and the USA, the more common
term for teacher learning applied in Indonesia by government and its international donor
partners is ‗training‘ rather than ‗professional development‘. This signifies an assumption
that teaching is a technical task rather than a profession. However, recent moves by the
government to professionalize the teaching force through upgrading qualifications and a
national program of certification indicate a desire to reconceptualize teaching as a
profession (World Bank, in press). This goes to the heart of the present study. Active
learning and many of the associated reforms, including school-based management and
school-based curriculum, assume that teachers are independent professionals, capable of
87
interpreting broad educational goals (expressed as basic competencies) and translating
these into teaching practices appropriate to the needs of individual students in specific
classroom contexts. In reality this is not the case in most Indonesian schools (Heyward &
Sopantini, 2013).
Notwithstanding this concern, for the purposes of this study, the term ‗professional
development‘ is used to refer to programs intended to prepare teachers to implement
active learning and similar reforms in the classroom. This reflects the government‘s use
of the term in relation to national programs such as Teacher Professional Training and
Education (Pendidikan dan Latihan Profesi Guru or PLPG), Teacher Professional
Develpoment (Pengembangan Profesi Guru or PPG) and Continuous Professional
Development (Pengembangan Keprofesian Berkelanjutan or PKB). The approach to
teachers‘ professional development taken by the Indonesian Government as reported in
Somantrie (2009) entails the following: (1) bureaucratic hierarchies, where what takes
places at the school level can be tracked from mandated policies passed hierarchically
through the district and provincial governments from the national government, (2)
expertise-based approaches, where the source of expertise is outside the school, (3)
model-based approaches, where good practices are modelled and come from other
schools, and (4) collegial approaches, where the cluster system and working groups for
teachers, and principals are the basis for collegial activities.
88
The impact of professional development on teachers
Views about teachers and teaching influence how we view the practices attached to these
concepts. Furthermore, the impact of professional development on teachers' beliefs and
behaviour and the relationship between teachers' beliefs and their practice is not
straightforward or simple (Cobbe, Wood & Yackel, 1990).
Many studies in the developed world have found evidence to support the proposition that
teacher professional development is associated with changes in teacher practice, and in
some cases improvements in student learning (Villegas-Reimers, 2003). There is
evidence from the USA to show that teaching improves when professional development
fosters dialogue among teachers, on their practice. A number of characteristics of
professional development have been found to be associated with sustaining change in
teachers‘ practice: (1) a heavy emphasis on providing concrete, realistic and challenging
goals; (2) activities that include both technical and conceptual aspects of instruction; (3)
support from colleagues; (4) frequent opportunities for teachers to witness the effects that
their efforts have on students' learning (Baker & Smith, 1999; Supovitz, Mayer and
Kahle, 2000). Experienced teachers' pedagogical content knowledge and beliefs can thus
be affected by professional development programmes. These changes are associated with
changes in their classroom instruction and, potentially, student achievement (Darling-
Hammond, 1999).
However, there is little evidence in the Indonesian context that professional development
improves practice. Evans and colleagues (2009) and MacNeil (2004) investigated the
89
school cluster system and found that it was not yet effective in improving teacher quality.
MacNeil (2004) noted that clusters should provide concrete, realistic, and challenging
goals, activities that include both technical and conceptual aspects of instruction, and
frequent opportunities for teachers to witness the effects that their efforts have on
students‘ learning. A recent and very comprehensive study conducted by the World Bank
investigated the impact of teacher upgrading and certification and found little evidence of
impact on teacher quality or student learning outcomes (World Bank, in press). A related
study observed the classroom interactions of junior high school mathematics teachers in
2007 and again in 2011 and found that active learning had decreased in this period.
Possible reasons suggested were: (1) a loss of momentum from the earlier training
provided to support the introduction of ‗contextual teaching and learning‘ (CTL), and (2)
an increase in the importance attached to the high-stakes national examinations, which
reward rote learning rather than active learning approaches (World Bank, in press).
The impact of professional development on student learning outcomes
The important question is whether teacher professional development has an impact, not
only on teachers, but on students‘ learning and the success of educational reform.
Loucks-Horsely and Matsumoto (1999) observe that student learning is not measured
frequently enough when evaluating the impact of teachers' professional development.
Notwithstanding this, a number of studies have found links between professional
development and student learning outcomes: well-designed professional development for
teachers can have a significant positive effect on students' performance and learning
(Borko and Putnam, 1995; Darling-Hammond, 1999; Supovitz & Turner, 2000; Supovitz,
90
Mayer & Kahle, 2000).
A number of studies have identified the conditions that facilitate changes which improve
students' learning. Policies that support these conditions are essential. Ancess (2001)
identified nine such conditions: incentives for teacher inquiry, opportunity for teacher
inquiry, teacher capacity for leadership in innovation and inquiry, respect for teacher
authority, flexible school structure, responsive and supportive administration, time,
resources and regulatory flexibility. Villegas-Reimers (2003) reported that: (1)
programmes focused on subject matter, or how students learn the subject have more
impact on students' learning than those which focus on pedagogy; (2) in-class visitations
as a variable offers diverse results; (3) teacher-specific programmes have a greater impact
on students‘ learning than school-wide programmes; (4) the total contact time with
teachers was not an important predictor of the effect on students' achievement; (5) the
effect of concentrated or distributed time for professional-development experience varied
according to subject matter. In most studies, concentrated time was more effective for
mathematics, while distributed time was more beneficial to science teachers.
While Guthrie (2011) argues that there is little evidence to support the link between
changing teaching methods and student learning outcomes in the developing world,
Warwick and Reimers (1995) studied the impact of teacher professional development in
Pakistan and concluded that the formal education of teachers was closely associated with
the levels of students' achievement. However, they also found that students' achievement
was not significantly related to whether or not teachers had a teacher certification. A
91
recent World Bank (in press) study in Indonesia found that certification of teachers
(which involved upgrading of teacher qualifications) has had no significant effect on
student achievement. Teacher certification, however, may have different requirements
and mean different things in different national contexts. Meanwhile, studies of how
schools improve have consistently suggested that teacher education (in particular in-
service training) is the single most important factor in explaining why some schools and
some sytems do well at helping students learn and others do not (Fullan, 2001; McKinsey
& Company, 2007). Effective teaching make the difference (Hattie, 2008).
The impact of professional development on reform
A number of studies have investigated the link between teacher professional development
and the success of education reform (Darling-Hammond and McLaughlin, 1995; Van Der
Werf, Creemers, De Jong & Klaver, 2000). The findings suggest that, for reforms to
succeed, professional development must involve teachers as stakeholders or partners
rather than simply trainees. Studies in Hongkong found that curriculum reform in that
country was designed by policy-makers with little, if any, input from the teachers and
consequently met with limited success (Morris, 2000; Walker and Cheng, 1996).
Villegas-Reimers and Reimers (1996) concluded that reforms such as this are common
around the world, as they are usually designed with the notion that teachers act as mere
obstacles rather than being the most important agents of educational reform and, thus,
their opinions are not considered when planning reforms or programmes of professional
development (see also Pierce & Hunsaker, 1996). Day (2000) drew similar conclusions
from a study of teacher professional development in England and Wales: teachers felt
92
excluded from such reforms and thus resented them, as they perceived the changes as
being a hindrance, creating confusion, a heavier workload and a lack of respect for their
work as professionals.
The success of change initiatives thus depends highly on the involvement and
commitment of individual teachers and principals. Certainly, the impact of any change on
student outcomes is heavily affected by teacher behaviour in the classroom. Teachers,
however, do not act only as individuals. They are part of a system, a community of
schools and in some places, such as Indonesia, clusters and teacher working groups.
Arguably, schools as a whole, their climate, ethos and culture, make an important
contribution to development and change (Ainscow, Hargreaves & Hopkins, 1995; Fullan
2001).
Where teachers are not involved as partners or stakeholders, resistance is likely (Klette,
2000; Chadbourne, 1995). Teacher resistance to change is a common challenge,
identified by Guthrie (2011) in relation to reform in the developing world. Little (2001)
found that in restructuring schools, most of the 'official time' devoted to professional
development is based on the administrator‘s conception that teachers‘ professional
development is a process of inspiration and goal setting where administrators have
already set goals and objectives of change, and professional development activities are
used to motivate teachers to strive to meet them, a strongly top-down design.
In contrast, where teachers are involved success is more likely. Dahlstrom and colleagues
93
(1999) studied the issue in Namibia and found that reforms that have centred around
teachers' professional development have been extremely successful in transforming even
national education systems with the support of a foreign donor. Samuel (1998) and
Robinson (1999) reached similar conclusions from studies in South Africa. A similar
trend can currently be seen in some teacher preparation institutions in South Africa that
are trying to impact educational and social reforms by transforming the programmes and
practices they offer.
In order to allow professional development to play an effective part in educational
reform, policies at system and school levels must be supportive of the changes that
teachers are asked to make. Darling-Hammond and McLaughlin (1995) reported that
professional-development experiences and opportunities that are not embedded in some
form of major reform of structures, policies, and organizations have not been successful,
as changing teachers without changing contexts, beliefs, and structures rarely creates a
significant change.
Holmes and colleagues (1995) reached a similar conclusion: unless there is some school-
wide commitment and collaboration or national commitment and collaboration in
national reforms, most attempts promoting teachers' professional development are non-
effective. They conducted research in nine school districts in the USA and identified the
following factors: (1) Local focus: Effective reforms result from local recognition of
needs and local solutions. This permits both teachers and administrators to establish a
personal commitment to the reform. (2) Significant funding: Superintendents and
94
principals who were interviewed agreed that if schools alone are responsible for
professional development, then the latter may suffer as cuts may be made at the district
level in that particular line of the budget. (3) Local leadership: This is crucial if the
reform is to gain the support of leaders both of the school and of the district. (4) Long-
range planning: This is one of the activities most likely to promote reform initiatives that
will include teachers' professional development. (5) Including teachers and their
professional development as part of the reform: This is one of the variables that appears
to predict a higher likelihood that the reform will be successful. (6) Collegiality: In all
successful professional development and reform there is a peer component. (7) Time:
Time for teachers' professional development. Providing a variety of opportunities for
professional development is another significant factor.
In addition, other studies have shown that variables such as the involvement of teachers
in curriculum planning, the design of new approaches and methods to be used by
teachers, or intellectually challenging the teachers to reflect, and improve on their
practices, can have an impact on the academic success of their students. All of these
characteristics are influenced by the preparation teachers have received and the
professional development opportunities they experience throughout their careers
(Darling-Hammond, 1998). Similarly, studies of the implementation of educational
innovations point to in-service preparation of teachers as a key factor in the adoption,
success and institutionalization of innovations (Fullan, 2001).
Little (2001) identified at least three factors that help to explain teachers' behaviour and
95
willingness to participate in reform efforts:
1. ―Reforms have the potential to enhance or threaten the intellectual, moral and
emotional satisfactions of classroom teaching...‖ (Little, 2001, p. 26) as they may
impose additional out-of-classroom responsibilities, and yet may offer very
welcome changes in the classroom.
2. ―Reforms have the potential to unite or divide colleagues, or to generate or
interrupt friendships and other bonds of professional community...‖ (Little, 2001,
p. 27).
3. ―Reforms have the potential to consume teachers' private lives and strain family
relationships...‖ (Little, 2001, p. 27) as there is an increased personal commitment
of time, emotional and intellectual energy, and real work such as developing
curricula, and writing reports.
Little (2001) reports that when teachers find a 'happy' fit between these variables and
their own lives, they become quite enthusiastic about educational reforms. Also,
according to Little (2001), when assessing a reform, teachers evaluate the benefits it can
offer to themselves and to their students, the scope of the reform, the feasibility of the
reform and the authority behind the reform.
It is thus widely accepted that teachers‘ professional development is a key factor in
ensuring that reforms at any level are effective. Successful professional-development
opportunities for teachers have a significant positive effect on students' performance and
learning. Thus, when the goal is to increase students' learning and to improve their
96
performance, the professional development of teachers should be considered a key factor,
and this at the same time must feature as an element in a larger reform.
The characteristics of effective professional development
While the research shows that teacher professional development can effectively change
teacher practice, there are also many teacher education programs that are ineffective. In
order to make sense of the different messages provided by research, we need to
understand that successful teacher professional development programs are based on a
number of interrelated and established principles.
In summary, it may be concluded that, to support successful reform in teaching practice,
professional development should:
1. focus on teachers as central to student learning, yet includes all other members of
the school community;
2. focus on pedagogy;
3. focus on individual, collegial, and organizational improvement;
4. treat teachers as partners and stakeholders in the process, not ‗objects‘; respect
and nurture the intellectual and leadership capacity of teachers, principals, and
others in the school community;
5. reflect best available research and practice in teaching, learning, and leadership;
6. enable teachers to develop further expertise in subject content, teaching strategies,
uses of technologies, and other essential elements in teaching to high standards;
97
7. promote continuous inquiry and improvement embedded in the daily life of
schools;
8. be planned collaboratively by those who will participate in and facilitate that
development;
9. be adequately resourced with financial support, time for teachers to engage in
professional development activities, and other resources;
10. be driven by a coherent long-term plan, embedded in policy;
11. be evaluated ultimately on the basis of its impact on teacher effectiveness and
student learning
(Darling-Hammond & McLaughlin, 1995; Day, 2000; Holmes, Futrell, Christie, &
Cushman, 1995; Little, 1992; Pierce & Hunsaker, 1996; Villegas-Reimers, 2003;
Villages-Reimers & Reimers,1996).
These principles form the basis for an analysis of the technical aspects of the case study
analysis in later chapters. Many of them are political or cultural in nature, also
highlighting the interrelatedness of the three perspectives discussed in this survey.
The political perspective
The political perspective in relation to this study on the implementation of active learning
in Indonesian schools is largely concerned with policy: policy development and policy
implementation. The key questions concern the location and influence of power in this
process. The two research questions posed in the study are both related to the question of
policy: what is intended and has been articulated in policy documents, and what is the
98
reality of practice, what actually happens at school and classrooms as a result of the
policy, in other words, the policy enactment. It is important to note that these questions
can imply a traditional linear approach to public policy analysis. However this need not
be the case. Following much current thinking on policy analysis which recognizes the
complexity and messiness of the real world when policy is enacted, policy making and
implementation are seen as interconnected and interdependent (Spillane, 1996; Taylor,
Rizvi, Lingard, & Henry, 1997). Therefore, in order to provide a logical framework for
the research questions, policy development is treated as separate and preliminary to
policy implementation.
In order to answer the research questions, it is necessary to investigate the policy level, to
consider the degree of conceptual clarity and operational feasibility of Indonesia‘s policy
on active learning. What do the key policy documents say about teaching, active learning,
and the role of teachers in the implementation? How do policy reform documents address
teachers‘ professional development issues? The aims in asking these questions are:
1. To establish the conceptual clarity of the teaching and learning approaches,
techniques, and activities;
2. To identify the desired changes attempted by active learning innovation;
3. To establish the role of teachers‘ professional development as a core element in
classroom reform by examining their conceptual clarity and strategies.
Second, it is necessary to ask questions at the practice level to establish what actually
happens in teachers‘ professional development activities and classrooms; for example,
99
1. What do the current teaching practices at both teacher professional development
activities and normal classrooms settings look like?
2. To what extent do these practices reflect or deviate from the prescribed active
learning practices?
The purpose of asking these questions is to determine the basic features of teaching
practice as enacted in the sample classrooms, and to classify these practices into either
reflecting teacher-centred (traditional or ‗formalistic‘) or child-centred (progressive)
teaching, or a mix of these two.
Finally, it is necessary to ask questions that anticipate the gap which exists between
teaching practices prescribed at the policy level and the actual teaching practices at both
school and cluster levels. The aim is to identify the factors that contribute to teaching
practices at the level of individual teachers, and to explore issues of implementation at a
broader and systemic level. The key question is how can the existing gap be explained?
To assist in answering this last question, in the following section various issues relating to
implementation are explored.
Educational change and policy development
A general introduction to the literature on policy and change in education is needed to
assist the understanding of the study topic within the broader context of educational
scholarship internationally and more specifically in developing nations, including
Indonesia.
100
Several political factors are relevant to the question of policy implementation, including:
political processes and communication amongst policy actors with reference to decision
making (Fink & Stoll, 1998; Fullan, 1994), implementation and evaluation (Calderhead,
2001; Joyce & Showers, 1995; Kelleher, 2003; Sroufe, Goertz, Herman, Yarger, Jackson,
& Robinson, 1995) and the dissonance between political and education time-frames and
priorities (Considine, 1994; Howlett & Ramesh, 1995; Maguire & Ball, 1994; Spillane,
Reiser & Reimer, 2002).
The literature points to the following most relevant themes: (1) the policy making
framework; (2) the contemporary view of policy development as a single, integrated
cyclical process; (3) the influence of the socio-political context; (4) the role of
transnational organizations in Indonesian education policy development. The key point in
the discussion that follows is that education reform policy in Indonesia and particularly
the policy on active learning is an imported policy, ‗borrowed‘ or ‗transferred‘ from the
West (historically its roots can be traced to the UK as explained in Chapter Four). This
discussion is arranged under the following sub-headings: (1) policy making frameworks,
(2) policy transfer, (3) development, international aid and globalization, (4) policy
implementation
Policy making frameworks refer to: (1) the institutions, (2) participants/actors, (3)
resources, (4) the weight of the state relative to the society, and (5) the capacity of the
governments to implement its policy; these are the most important elements to understand
101
in relation to any given policy (Horowitz, 1989b). This framework is highlighted by
comparing policies in the developed and developing nations. For the purposes of this
study, it is concluded that the contemporary view of policy development as a single,
integrated cyclical process, is the most useful for policy analysis (Ball, 1990; Dale, 1989;
Taylor, Rizvi, Lingard & Henry, 1997).
Policy decision-making is subject to a range of pressures that emerge from the socio-
political context in which policy unfolds: ignoring this premise limits understanding of
policy. These pressures are mutually dependent on the perceptions, thinking and
behaviours of all policy actors (Gardner, 2009; Hall & Hord, 1987; Lieberman, 1995;
Taylor, Rizvi, Lingard, & Henry, 1997). Transnational organizations, such as the World
Bank, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), and the Asia Development Bank (ADB),
play a big role in the development of education policy in Indonesia, including policy
relating directly to teachers (Alexander 2001; Lewis & Chakeri, 2004).
With regard to the focus of change in teaching practice in Indonesian primary schools, an
important note of concern relates to the ‗exporting‘ of ‗active learning‘ beyond the
context of its genesis (Phillips & Ochs, 2004; Stephen, 2007). This is a key issue for
Indonesia: it is one thing for active learning to be adopted in developed nations with
the context of (1) a highly capacitated bureaucracy, staffed by a professional corps of
policymakers with significant capacity for understanding and engaging with evidence,
research and social science; and (2) a professional corps of teachers, able to interpret
broad learning outcomes, expressed for example as competencies, into learning
102
activities tailored to the individual student. It is another thing entirely in the context of
Indonesia (Datta, Jones, Febriany, Harris, Dewi, Wild, & Young, 2011; Horowitz,
1989b).
In Indonesia the capacity of government for informed policy development is weak,
similar to that described in South Africa by Von Holdt (2010). Public servants with an
interest in and a capacity for engaging with social science and research are few and far
between (Dhakidae, 1998). The teacher culture values loyalty to the state more than
professional independence and service to children (Bjork, 2005; Nielsen, 1998), and
societal culture values respect for authority rather than independent thinking
(Dardjowijono, 2001; Hallinger and Kantamara, 2001; Hofstede, 2005; Magnis-Suseno,
1993, 1997).
Knowledge of policy development, especially policy development in the developing
nations, owes much to political science (Horowitz, 1989a; Weaver-Hightower, 2008).
Meanwhile, to understand the interplay of various factors affecting the construction and
implementation of an education policy, one cannot ignore the importance of the roles
played by actors in the following: (1) broad changes in society; (2) societal culture and its
impact on change in education; (3) bureaucratic culture and its impact on change in
education; and (4) school culture and its impact on change in education and the centrality
of technical matters. All of these are subjects relevant to sociology and research in
educational reform.
103
The fields of policy and of educational change share a common feature: both are complex
and dynamic. Literature relevant to this common theme, complexity, is reviewed below.
Marsh (2004) proposed change models which are neat and helpful in assisting researchers
to understand the complexity of change in education. He identifies two models, the first
being change external to the school and the second internal to the school. He further
states that the external model typically relies on authority to influence people, processes
and the use of resources. Meanwhile, the internal model relies on interaction, group
processes and consensus. He cautioned that there is a variety of other models that can
also be associated with the external and the internal change processes. The external
model is particularly relevant to the case study because the approach mostly used in
effecting change in Indonesian education system is external. Governments in Asia tends
to use policy as a tool and do not reflect current understandings of policy as a mediated
process (Hallinger, 2005). Gardner (2006) in her review of literature in the study of a
policy implementation involving a variety of policy actors, further noted that: (1) policy
texts cannot impose solutions to problems: they generate rather than prescribe conditions;
(2) power in the policy process does not reside exclusively with policymakers who need
to demonstrate increased awareness of the needs, interests and concerns of those on
whom they depend for policy enactment; and (3) policy makers‘ unfamiliarity with
specific circumstances of implementation presents challenges that can be addressed by,
first, communicating with policy implementers about policy; second, viewing themselves
(policy makers) as having as much to learn as they expect others to learn; and third,
understanding better how their policy-making may contribute to the provision of a
supportive environment for teacher-learning.
104
Policy transfer
This section draws on the work of David Stephen (2007) in his analysis of issues of
culture and aid and Priska Sieber and Carola Mantel (2012) who wrote about the
internationalization of teacher education. Sieber and Mantel (2012) mention a number of
writers who examined issues in the concept of international transfer of education policy
and practice. When educational ideas, principles, policies, and practices are transferred
from one context to another, they go through a series of stages when they are first
resisted, then supported, modified, and finally indigenized as they are implemented in the
recipient context. Thus, educational transfer is not a smooth, one-way, or direct process.
Nor are the consequences of transfer predictable. Each site has its own context, its own
historical, political, and social legacy, and each educational system has its specific
structure and its unique network of educational actors who are more or less powerful in
supporting or rejecting the foreign ideas that may be implemented in their national
educational context (Cowen, 2000; Phillips & Ochs, 2004; Schriewer, 2000; Steiner-
Khamsi & Quist, 2000).
Development, international aid and globalization
The background theory to the discussion in this section includes theory on development,
international aid and globalisation. In considering education reform, it is important to first
understand the shared view underlying Indonesia‘s efforts at development and nation
building. What is the influence of this understanding or shared view on development in
general, and in the education sectors specifically? Although not explicitly mentioned in
105
the Education Act or other legislation, policy development in Indonesia basically follows
the modernization paradigm of developed countries like the US. This paradigm assumes
that the experience with development of the developed nations of the North is the norm
for historical progress and must be emulated by the rest of the world.
On this debate, Tabulawa (2003) argues that the modernization paradigm of 1950 -1980
is closely associated with stages of economic growth which would culminate in a liberal
capitalist economic system with the political characteristics of the western democracies.
Tabulawa (2003) further argues that, as a consequence of adopting the liberal capitalist
economic system, development in third world countries has to follow the course of the
core nations of Europe, America and Japan as models.
As suggested, Indonesia‘s education reform agenda has been set in large part by foreign
donors, including multi-lateral and national and international non-government
organizations (Riddell, 2012). The underlying assumption of both donors and aid
recipients is that in order for developing nations to enjoy the prosperity experienced in
the west, they must adopt the same economic, political and social structures. It is in this
context that one can see how educational reforms, such as active learning, become
imported policy in Indonesia.
Capitalist democracy as both an ideology, and a political-economic system formally
entered the global stage in the 1950s and 1960s. These decades witnessed the formulation
by US social scientists of the modernisation paradigm. This paradigm was subsequently
106
―...enshrined in the policy of the US Government and multilateral aid agencies‖ (Dryzek,
1996, p. 18). The modernisation paradigm of development was closely associated with
Rostow's (1960) stages of economic growth. Rostow's 'non-communist manifesto' held
that the stages of economic growth would ―...culminate in a liberal capitalist economic
system with the political characteristics of the Western democracies‖ (Dryzek, 1996, p.
18). It was thus a re-statement of the inseparability of capitalism and liberal democracy
thesis. The implication of this was clear. Societies that needed to develop could follow
the core nations of Europe, America and Japan as models. Third World countries, as Peet
(1991) states, could encourage the diffusion of innovation from the centre (Euro-America
and Japan), could adopt capitalism as the mode of social integration and would welcome
United States aid and direction (p. 33).
That the modernisation theory of development was Eurocentric is beyond doubt. The
theory's basic assumption was that the West's experience with development was the norm
for historical progress and had to be emulated by the rest of the world, not least by the
developing countries. With its basis in structural modernisation theory, it was believed
that for Third World countries to modernise they needed to erode and break old social,
economic and psychological commitments. This could be done by introducing structures
of capitalism into those countries. Western education (as one of the structures of
capitalism) in periphery states was aimed at eroding traditional modes of thought. It was
envisaged that economic growth in developing countries would ultimately lead to a more
differentiated political system (liberal democracy) in those countries (Tabulawa, 2003).
Developing a democratic society is an agenda emulating the progress and success
107
achieved by developed nations of the North (Tabulawa, 2003) which, arguably, has
defined the development paradigm adopted by Indonesian technocrats in the past fifty
years. The recent focus of development assistance to Indonesia from countries like
Australia and the US, on improving the quality of education in Islamic schools
(madrasah) is arguably a contemporary expression of this same dynamic. The objective
is, arguably, to reduce the risk of terrorism, to promote liberal, secular, democratic and
pluralist societies through changing the practice in Islamic schools, introducing
community participation, active learning and similar reforms (Permani, 2011).
Programs which result from this dynamic and the modernization theory include those
implemented and funded in Indonesia by the World Bank and other multilateral lending
agencies, such as the Asia Development Bank (ADB), bilateral aid programs, such as
those funded by the Australian Agency for International Development (formerly
AusAID) and the United States Agency for International Development (USAID),
multilateral agencies such as UNICEF, UNESCO, and international non-government
agencies such as CARE International and Save the Children.
The impact of globalization is thus a key issue for educational policy development in
Indonesia. In particular, the concommitent role of international donors in policy
development is problematic, resulting in imported policy which does not always match
well the local context. The globalization of education policy forms a backdrop to the
development of education policy in Indonesia since the collapse of the New Order
Government in 1998 (Phillip & Ochs, 2004).
108
In considering the literature above on cultural factors and the impact of globalization, it is
clear that greater attention should be paid to contextual factors when introducing
educational reform policy and international development cooperation. In support of this
view, Crossley (2009), for example, maintains that concern for context ―...penetrates to
the heart of comparative education‖ (Crossley, 2009, p. 1173).
In this section, the discussion has focussed on policy and educational change from the
perspective of policy development and the influence of globalization and policy
borrowing in Indonesia. The research into policy implementation suggests how the
dynamic described above can result in poor policy which, as a result of being imported
from the West, does not fit well the context of Indonesia and for this reason, among
others, is often not well implemented. This is not to suggest that all policies and practices
which derive from outside the country are bad. It is the blind importation of policy and
practice without consideration given to local cultural, political and technical factors
which is problematic.
Policy implementation
The important question is why education policies succeed or fail in causing change in
schools? And why reforms often result in superficial change only? Within the field of
education, barriers to the achievement of reform and desired changes within a system
have been widely documented. Systemic education reform and the factors in question
have been mainly studied in developed countries. Ann Lieberman (1998), for example,
109
stated that educational change as a field of study has deep roots in America. In the early
1980‘s Fullan (1982) produced a list of what is called factors affecting implementation.
Since then, more research has been conducted and useful information is available to assist
policy makers and practitioners to better understand technical and practical issues crucial
to successful implementation of education innovation (Fullan, 2001; Guthrie, 2011).
Individuals and individual schools bring different influences to the enactment of policy.
Indeed, even the identification of what constitutes worthwhile innovation outcomes
differs among policy actors. While the perceptions, thinking and behaviour of policy
actors are critical in determining the outcome of policy processes, the pressures also are
mutually dependent upon them. Policy implementation is complex and is interconnected
in complex ways with the socio-political contexts with the social fabric of societies
(Conley, 1997; Datnow & Castellano, 2000; Goodson, 1997; Hall & Hord, 1987;
Hopkins & Levin, 2000; Lieberman, 1995).
Another relevant theme in this background literature review is that change is
multidimensional involving possible changes in goals, skills, philosophy, beliefs, and
behaviour. Although changes are initiated for a variety of reasons including imposed
policy or voluntary participation, and dissatisfaction with current situation, change is
about making better practices (Fullan, 2001). However, Marsh (2004) contends that not
all changes lead to something better. In his words, some innovations have been
disappointing and have brought about yet another turn in the search for the `best'
education.
110
Alexander, Murphy, and Woods (1996) observe that educational organizations are
characterized by the introduction of many innovations and, simultaneously, by the
pattern that many of these innovations fade away or are later seen as far from
satisfactory. In the view of these authors the current state of affairs suggests two
possibilities: first, educators like to select innovations that address issues with which
they are familiar and thus feel they can manage. This leads to the selection of
innovations that are easy to implement rather than those most appropriate and needed.
Second, educators may not accumulate knowledge of past innovations undertaken by
their own organizations or they may have limited understanding of the principles that
underlie such innovations (Alexander, Murphy & Woods, 1996).
Alternative explanations for the failure to implement innovations suggested by the
literature are: (1) existing routines drive off new practices, assumptions, and values,
especially when the latter are predicated on personnel and structures made possible by
funds outside the regular budget; (2) school systems have weak mechanisms for
organizational learning and organizational memory. Experiences from projects go into
evaluations accessible to or read by few organizational actors. Turnover of personnel
takes away people familiar with the purposes and practices of the innovations; and (3)
resistance of a political nature (e.g., to the introduction of ideas and procedures that
challenge the status quo) or a professional nature (e.g., to teachers being asked to behave
in different ways in the absence of clear incentives to modify present behaviours) is an
effective means of self-preservation (Alexander, Murphy & Woods, 1996).
111
It is widely recognised that policy as enunciated, and policy in practice typically are
different (Ball, 1999; Tyack & Cuban, 1995). As a result of this paradox, the policy
implementation process is commonly fraught with tension (Bridgman & Davis, 2000;
Ingvarson, 1994). The evidence in the literature points to the need for a balanced
approach in a range of matters, not the least of which is the inclusion of policy actors
across the policy process (Considine, 1994; Jaensch, 1997, Taylor, Anderson, Au and
Raphael, 2000). An inclusive process is preferable to one that restricts different policy
actor groups to involvement in the traditional bounded stages of policy making, policy
implementation or policy evaluation, but not across stages or across the entire process
(Darling-Hammond, 1998).
Policy outcomes are enhanced by policy processes that enable teachers to work
collaboratively while acknowledging and valuing individualism (Louis, Toole &
Hargreaves, 1999). Accordingly, policy outcomes are improved in contexts in which
there is first, mutual respect, that is respect for teachers‘ professionalism while addressing
the need for public input into education and policy (Darling-Hammond, 1998), and
second, in which there is recognition of the role of schooling in the maintenance of
societal standards along with the need for schools to operate in a progressively more
uncertain environment and respond to and initiate change (Borman, Castenell, Gallagher,
Kilgore & Martinson, 1995; Churchill & Williamson, 1999).
112
An internet search for recent studies conducted on the implementation of active learning
reported in English found a mix of information. Much of the material consisted of critical
commentary, descriptive articles, or teaching and workshop guidelines, mainly for
colleges or in-service teacher training. There were also a few research studies reported
from a variety of countries including Greece (Vasilis & Malamatenios, 2009), Hongkong
(Sivan, Leung, Woon, & Kember, 2010) and a number of countries which were the
recipients of overseas funding. This last group included studies in Cambodia (Bunlay,
Wright, Sophea, Bredenburg, & Singh, 2010), Egypt (Megahed, Ginsburg, Abdellah, &
Zohry, 2010), Jordan (Roggeman & Shukri, 2010), Kyrzigkistan (Price-Rom and
Sainazarov, 2010), and Malawi (Mizrachi, Padilla, & Susuwele-Banda, 2010), and a
report in which all of this group were compiled into one comparative case study
(Ginsburg, 2010).
Interestingly, the result of all these studies suggested a mixed but positive set of findings:
the use of active learning approaches was found to have contributed positively to student
learning. It is also interesting to note that the studies resulting from this search took place
at various grade levels; in kindergarten in the Jordan study, in primary schools in the
Greek study, and in colleges/universities in the Hongkong study. No studies were found
that reported the implementation of active learning in primary schools in Australia,
Canada, or the UK. Unlike the case in Indonesia and other developing countries, which
have been recipients of overseas funding, in the last decade the teaching and learning
discourse in developed countries has moved on from a concern with active learning into
quality teaching and learning, models of teaching (Joyce & Weil, 1996), constructivism
113
(McInerney & McInerney, 1998), teaching of thinking skills (Eggen & Kauchak 2001)
and effective teaching (Killen, 2003).
The Indonesian experience
As is mentioned in Chapter One, since the fall of the New Order Government of Suharto
in 1998, Indonesia has embarked on an ambitious national program of reform in the
management, governance, curriculum and pedagogy practiced in its schools. This
illustrates the centralistic nature of the Indonesian school curriculum, even when the
system is said to have been decentralized.
Unlike in developed nations, the study of educational change is not common in Indonesia.
As discussed in Chapter One and noted by Cannon (2012), there is a dearth of
independent research into the implementation of active learning and similar reforms in
Indonesian schools and classrooms. Most of the research available has been conducted
under various donor-funded projects, and is thus written primarily for the funding agency.
This reality seriously compromises the independence of the studies and the validity of
findings and conclusions. Whilst there is a considerable body of research on educational
reform and innovation, a gap exists between policy intent and policy implementation.
Although, as described above, this phenomenon is not uncommon in education systems, a
noticeable discrepancy is visible in the Indonesian system (Buchori, 2001; Joni, 2000;
Raihani, 2007; Semiawan, 2003; Suparno, 2004; Zulfikar, 2009).
114
In addition to the research funded by donors, several studies have been conducted by
students in Indonesian. A survey of studies reported in Bahasa Indonesia on the
implementation of active learning revealed a number of recent implementation case
studies. All of the reports investigated the use of active learning in Indonesian schools,
most used a qualitative research methodology, and all were the result of undergraduate
and post graduate course work (Emqi, 2010; Evayanti, 2010; Srihartanto, 2007). As
discussed in Chapter One, the standard, scope and methodology of these studies is limited
by the funding and research capacity of the teacher training institutes. No relevant studies
by Indonesian students studying overseas, either at graduate or post graduate level, were
found in this survey.
Two relevant points need to made. Firstly, many of the studies were conducted in 2000‘s,
an indication that active learning was included within the discourse of teacher training at
Indonesian universities within this decade. During this period, Indonesia received
substantial funding to develop its education system (Cannon, 2008; Chowdhury &
Sugema, 2005; Lewis and Chakeri, 2004). This was not the case in the previous decades
(including 1976 – 1984 when CBSA was introduced), during which period the teachers
who took part in the case study reported in this thesis completed their teacher training
(Baedlowi, 2003). Secondly, in the 2000‘s, the same period as the group of studies
referred to above, the case study in primary schools in North Maluku province that is
reported in this thesis was conducted. At this time, an active learning pedagogy was being
adopted also and used by some schools in Java (Pradipto, 2007).
115
It is also interesting to note that some of the universities and the schools in which the
research was conducted were Islamic teacher training institutions and madrasah. As
described in Chapter One, 20 per cent of Indonesian children are educated in Islamic
schools, known as madrasah. The Islamic education system includes schools, universities
and teacher training institutes which operate in much the same way as regular schools and
universities. Megahed and colleagues (2010) note that, although qur‘anic schools in the
past tended to emphasize rote learning and memorization, alternative pedagogical
traditions associated with Islamic scholars stress an active cognitive role in learning for
students. In general, almost all studies in this group reported successful implementation
(Emqi, 2010; Evayanti, 2010; Srihartanto, 2007).
The few credible independent studies of school and classroom reforms that have been
conducted in Indonesia all highlight a lack of success in changing current practices
(Bjork, 2003; Cannon & Hore, 1997; Malcolm, McLean, Tanuputra, & Harlen, 2001;
Pusat Kurikulum, 2007; Semiawan, 2001; Van Der Werf, Creemers, De Jong & Klaver,
2000). This suggests that reform in Indonesia is failing to achieve a deep-level change in
the classroom. In contrast, Young (2010) studied the implementation of active learning
principles in training for English language teachers at the University of Banten in Java.
Young concluded that, while the approach was imported, lectures and teachers were
‗well-informed and engaged‘ in implementation (p. xi). Young‘s study, however, was
conducted among relatively young, well-educated lecturers and secondary school
teachers in Banten, on the outskirts of Jakarta. Unlike primary school teachers and
administrators in rural areas outside of Java, these educators had the benefits of English
116
language and access to resources and ideas from international donors (including the
USAID-funded Decentralized Basic Education, or DBE, project) and the educational
community of Jakarta.
This survey of the limited literature on Indonesian education reform also demonstrates
that context has largely been ignored in research on Indonesian reform. Why is this the
case? The literature suggests at least two possibilities.
First, the perceived merits of active learning, and its successful penetration into
mainstream practices in England, came about because of a host of condusive
circumstances at the time. These are discussed in the section below (see Table 2.1).
Second, as Crossley (2009) argues, international development consultants tend to operate
within a positivistic paradigm which does not recognize local context. Crossley asserts
that some approaches to comparative and international research in education have been
influenced by positivistic paradigms, and these are often characterized in theoretical
positions and statistical analyses which seek law-like generalizations and ideal models for
international transfer and transplantation (Crossley, 2009).
This approach to international development, coupled with the nature of public policy-
making in Indonesia described above, creates an ideal setting for the uncritical attempt to
import foreign solutions to local educational challenges – without consideration of local
context. It is not unreasonable to propose that the lack of critical thinking on the part of
the domestic actors in the policy-making process, as well as lack of both conceptual and
117
practical knowledge of the innovation and its implementation, are behind the ‗wholesale‘
acceptance of active learning as a policy. Additionally, it may be argued that the terms
and conditions that are attached to grants and loans from donors such as the World Bank,
which funded the innovation, could have restricted the policy maker‘s flexibility.
These issues are explored in more depth in the section below on the cultural perspective.
The cultural perspective
Much research on curriculum implementation in developing countries, including
Indonesia, has focussed on what may be termed ‗technical variables‘. Such variables
include planning of curriculum content, teachers work lives, factors affecting teaching
and learning, teachers‘ professional development and so on. Whilst these investigations
have no doubt offered something for improvement in their respective areas (Iemjinda,
2002; Jalinus, 1997) little attention has been given to studying the non-technical variables
suspected to play a big role in creating the discrepancies commonly found in Indonesian
schools (Bjork, 2005). House and McQuillan‘s (1998) contribution to theory in school
reform and program implementation suggests that studies of successful or failure of
reform programs should consider three perspectives; (1) technical, (2) political, and (3)
cultural.
What has often been ignored in the study of international policy transfer is the fact that
pedagogy is located historically and culturally (Alexander, 2001). In studying foreign
systems of education we should not forget that the things outside the schools matter even
118
more than the things inside the schools, and govern and interpret the things inside
(Crossley, 2010).
While the previous sections of this chapter discussed constraints of a technical and
political nature, the constraints considered below will be discussed in the context of
literature that highlights the role of society and societal culture. The cultures of teachers,
schools and government are also considered as sub-cultures within the broader societal
culture, which are in many ways a product of that broader culture. While the international
literature on school change brought the issue of culture to the fore (Ainscow, Hargreaves
& Hopkins, 1995; Fullan, 1991), it focussed on organizational and school culture, and
largely ignored the impact of broader societal cultures. The assumption was that
mainstream, western cultures were the norm. This assumption is false in the context of
Indonesia and similar developing nations. Traditional societal cultures in this context are
very different to mainstream western cultures, in which most of the international research
on school reform has been undertaken. As discussed below, this difference is critical to
an understanding of the policy implementation process in Indonesia.
The significance of culture in policy transfer
Alexander (2008) asserts that three kinds of ‗teaching talk‘ (rote/drilling, recitation, and
exposition) are most common among teachers internationally, while other forms of
pedagogical interaction (discussion and dialogue) have greater power to provoke
cognitive engagement and understanding.
119
How have these principles been translated into the Indonesian context? The literature on
progressive learning principles, including active learning, and how these have become
widespread in developing countries, including Indonesia, begins with the work of Beeby
(1966). Beeby essentially argued that the key to reform is the teacher. Teacher capacity to
change is aided by in-service training. However, Beeby‘s argument that the main obstacle
to reform in developed and developing nations is teacher capacity was subsequently
refuted by Guthrie (1986, 1990, 2011).
Many studies have been conducted from the so-called ‗policy mechanics‘ approach, a
term firstly coined by Fuller and Clarke (1994) to refer to a stream of school effectiveness
research studies informed by educational economics. Most studies focus on large
samples, quantitative analysis, relying primarily on the numerous surveys and student
achievement tests, especially in science, mathematics and language (Guthrie, 2011). The
educational research paradigm in Indonesia generally takes an economic view of policy
and education. This economics-driven approach has been particularly influential in
Indonesia where much of the research which has influenced public policy has been
conducted by the World Bank, an organization essentially focussed on economics and the
role of education in supporting economic development.
Despite the strong legacy of active learning in the developing world, thanks to
international donor agencies role including World Bank in globalising the active learning
tradition, there is a dearth of research on the effectiveness of the approach in classrooms.
There is arguably a place for more research to be focussed on investigating classroom
120
practices in Indonesia as an important area (Cannon, 2008). As was cogently argued in
Guthrie‘s work, The Progressive Education Fallacy in Developing Countries; In Favour
of Formalism (2011), the work of the ‗policy mechanic‘ analysts has lost heavily in the
trade-off with validity and relevance by underestimating the importance of context and by
not taking culture and classroom processes seriously (Guthrie, 2011, p. 77). In other
words, the important role of the contextual aspects in policy and implementation process
must not be ignored, as was pointed out by various writers such as Taylor, Rizvi, Lingard,
and Henry (1997) and Ball (1999). Pertinent to this issue, the effectiveness of teacher
education and of teaching styles, which are a critical aspect of successful implementation
of any innovation in education, are context-based. Refreshingly, one significant study
conducted in Indonesia did investigate the implementation of an education policy in
Indonesian schools and considered the cultural perspective (Bjork, 2003).
This study is not a study of active learning per se but a study of the adoption of active
learning in Indonesian primary schools. The sociologist, Everett M. Rogers (1995)
mentions some principles of adoption to refer to what determines the rate of take up for
an innovation. He proposes a systematic and rationalized approach where the innovation
process is separated into different functions and components. The change process is
classified into five stages: (1) awareness, (2) interest, (3) evaluation, (4) trial, and (5)
adoption. Rogers also classified adopters into (1) innovators, (2) early adopters, (3) early
majority, (4) late majority, and (5) laggard in which the value framework is obvious in
the labelling.
121
However, the common tendency to blame teachers for the failure to implement change is
simplistic. More thoughtful and useful explanations are required if reform efforts are to
succeed in the future. Teachers are the users of innovation and reform (Hall & Hord,
1987; Rogers, 1995). The users are critical for reform to succeed; they need to have the
necessary skills and understanding to implement the change. However, this technical
explanation is insufficient (Bjork 2003).
In this context, the ‗implementation dip' first identified by Fullan (2001) in relation to
education reform refers to obstacles in the implementation phase of education program
reform. This concept has also received attention in a variety of studies. The
implementation dip refers to a loss of confidence and performance that occurs as teachers
and educators attempt to implement an innovation. It typically occurs after an initial
period of confidence and enthusiasm during the first stage of implementation. Without
further support, teachers often give up at this point, losing confidence with the
innovation, resulting in a failure to implement the change. Observations in Indonesia
suggest that changes in classroom practice supported by development projects are
frequently not sustained once project support is withdrawn (Guthrie, 2011; Heyward &
Sopantini, 2013). One reason for this failure to institutionalize reforms may be the initial
implementation dip and implementers becoming disheartened. This failure may also
relate to the deeper cultural issues discussed below.
Other critical aspects include the problematic process of policy making (Elmore, 1997;
Elmore, 1980; Klemperer, Theisens, Kaiser, 2001), and the technical, political and
122
economic aspects of policy implementation (Hill, 2001; Hall & Hord, 1984; House, 1979;
Nielsen, 1998; Windschitl, 2002). However, the explanations given by many scholars,
commentators and practitioners alike for the repeated failure of reform efforts suggest a
much simpler solution than is required for a deep-level change to occur. The question of
culture, which is generally missing from the discourse and explanations of reform failure
in Indonesia, is critical (Hallinger, 2005). An understanding of the political, technical and
cultural contexts and the interplay between these is required for a more complete analysis
(House & McQuillan, 1998).
In an example from another country, Schafer and Wilmot (2012) analyse the
internationalization of teacher education in South Africa, focusing on the two decades
since the country‘s transition into a democratic state. The authors critically examine the
consequences of the change process in teacher education and highlight some outcomes
resulting from the tension. The first national curriculum of 2005, for instance, is referred
to as an ‗indigenized foreigner‘.
Not only was it based on imported values and a ‗kind of being‘ that was not familiar to
teachers. It was also inherently contradictory: It entailed, on the one hand, an underlying
emancipatory discourse aiming at critical thinking and participation, and on the other
hand, a performance-geared culture requiring increased state regulation and control.
(Sieber & Mantel, 2012, p. 12)
This could well have been written for Indonesia and the importation of curriculum and
pedagogy policies in this country, including active learning.
123
Another feature of innovations in developing countries is that they often rely on
expatriates for both diffusion and adoption. This introduces another element of
‗otherness,‘ since expatriates are perceived as outsiders. Further, expatriate experts
present varying degrees of commitment to country and change (Cannon, 1991). It often
appears that innovations, reforms and change policy in Indonesia, promoted both by
government and by the international donor community, lag behind those of the
developed nations. For example, Indonesia‘s short-lived 2004 national curriculum,
known as the Competency Based Curriculum (Kurikulum Berbasis Kompetensi or
KBK), in many ways resembled the 1994 Australian national curriculum. By the time
the ideas embedded in this curriculum had reached Indonesia through the influence of
key government officials studying in Australian universities (e.g. Yulaelawati, 1996) and
Australian experts providing advice to the Indonesian Curriculum Centre, Australian
education thinking and curriculum paradigms had moved on. Similarly, the innovation
of active learning which was first introduced in Indonesia through a British-funded aid
program in the 1970s, was already decades old in the UK at the time, as is described
later in this chapter. International experts sometimes appear to promote ideas and
practices that are already outmoded in their home countries.
In this context, Guthrie‘s (2011) study of formalism in developing countries including
Papua Nuginie is relevant. In this significant study, which was conducted specifically in
the context of developing countries, most of which had been the recipients of
considerable funding from overseas, Guthrie (2011) argues against the general findings
reported in the donor-funded studies mentioned above. The context of societal culture is
124
argued to have played a critical role in the persistence of the traditional teaching
methodology. Guthrie (2011) refutes the claim that progressive learning principles,
including the active learning approach, are the way to improve quality education in
developing countries. He carefully argues against the application of progressive education
principles to curriculum and pre-and in-service teacher education in developing countries.
Hallinger (2005) described the problem well when he wrote:
...during an era when Asia‘s economies have thrived on exporting goods and products to
the West, they have been on receiving end of a virtual smorgasbord of imported
education reforms – school-based management, curriculum standards, parent
participation, student-centered learning, ICT and more... Yet, observers have noted that
these imported reforms have not always received a ready acceptance among users at the
school level. ....
Southeast Asia represents a cultural and institutional context with values and traditions
that vary sharply in certain respects with those of the Western societies from which these
reforms have been imported... Traditions of rote learning, teacher-directed instruction,
rigid national curriculum systems, and highly centralized administrative structures
evolved in this region with a strength and character that, we assert, differs significantly
from Western societies. Moreover, the values that underlie imported educational
innovations often conflict with those of the receiving culture. (Hallinger, 2005, p. 4)
Dissatisfaction, among a small group of professionals who had studied in the UK and
elsewhere and were associated with the national Curriculum Centre, with the so-called
‗traditional‘ or later known as ‗formalistic‘ education practices (Guthrie, 2011) was
125
behind the emergence of child-centred learning approach in Indonesian primary schools
in 1970‘s (Tangyong, Wahyudi, Gardner, Hawes, 1989). While the same dissatisfaction
may also have motivated the proponents of progressive education in England in 1920‘s to
embrace the same approach (Darling, 1994) there were stark differences in the way the
approach took off in the two countries. These differences stem from the following
aspects: (1) the way the education stakeholders in each country responded after the
introduction of the approach, and (2) who played roles in the initiation and how and in
what contexts the approach was adopted in the two countries. These differences may have
played some role in the different result this progressive view penetrated into the systems.
The following table illustrates how the societal and cultural contexts varied between the
UK and Indonesia, relevant to the introduction of active learning. While the innovation
grew out of a specific set of contextual conditions in the UK, in Indonesia it was
introduced or imported from overseas. No such supporting set of conditions existed.
Table 2.1: Comparing the cultural and societal contexts of active learning innovation in the UK and Indonesia
UK Indonesia
Time-frame Emerged in 1920‘s and practised by
a circle of independent schools
funded by Theosophical
Educational Trust.
It did not take off much further until
after post WW II with the issuance
of the Plowden Report (1967).
Penetrated into the mainstream
system at least until 1992, when the
Introduced in 1970‘s by British
funded Active Learning &
Professional Support (ALPS)
education project.
1984 officially adopted in the
primary curriculum and is still
embedded in the next three different
primary curriculum of 1994, 2004
(Competency-based/KBK), and 2006
(school-based/KTSP)
126
government started to view
education as an instrumental tool for
the national competitiveness.
Scholarly debates
for and against
Many, including R.S. Peters (1968),
educational philosopher, and school
superintendent, Robin Alexander
(1984) opposed the idea and
questioned its implementation.
Few, not in the form of either
substantial philosophical or
educational debates.
Societal During the period of its emergence
until its decline, society also
undertook a radical change to
include civil liberty, anti-war, and
women movements which change
the basic fabric of society including
family and societal values.
The fabric of society did not
undertake any radical change and is
relatively stable where communalism
and respect of authority prevail.
The above table illustrates that, in terms of time-frame, there is a gap of about five
decades from the time the approach began to be adopted in some British primary schools
to its introduction to Indonesian primary schools. This gap reflects the time lag referred to
in the discussion of policy importation in the earlier section of this chapter on policy. As
a progressive movement in teaching and learning, the legacy of the approach in the
learning of primary schools children in Britain is much more apparent than that in the
learning of primary school children in Indonesian schools. The approach was introduced
by keen education pioneers in England and gained support from independent schools
after which it began to be adopted by government schools and penetrated into the
mainstream system until 1992 – at which time the British Government started to radically
change education with a focus on developing it as an instrumental tool to increase the
nation‘s competitiveness (Doddington & Hilton, 2007). In Indonesia, the adoption of
child-centred and active learning was mainly driven by either international donors like
UNICEF or bilateral donor programs funded by the governments of developed countries
127
such as the British Council. In this case it was the UK Government, through the Active
Learning and Professional Support Programme (ALPS).
In terms of scholarly debates, many British education stakeholders were engaged in the
arguments either for or against the approach and its adoption and a major body of work
resulted. In Indonesia only a few studies have been conducted on the approach and its
adoption.
In terms of societal contexts from which the approach started to grow, the British society
was undergoing massive changes including the women movement and anti-war protests
which created pressure for changes in the basic fabric of society, including in family and
societal values. The same thing cannot be said of Indonesia. Apart from the political
change which brought down the Suharto‘s New Order Government in 1998, the society
and culture has relatively stable; communalism and respect for authority prevail.
The influence of societal culture
The importance of context and culture in explaining the success or failure of education
reform, especially in the case of imported policies and practices in developing nations
such as Indonesia, was highlighted in the previous section with reference to the work of
Hallinger (2005), Crossley (2009) and Guthrie (2011). The objective of this section is to
review the literature on the relationship between society, culture and educational change
and, in particular, to highlight Indonesian society and social culture.
128
The survey of literature on societal culture and reform below highlights the many barriers
to implementation active learning in many developing nations. In order to consider the
influence of culture on educational reform, we first must clarify what is meant by the
term culture in this context. For the purpose of this study, the following definition is
adopted. Culture is constructed, it defines groups within and between societies, it is fluid
and changing, and it is learned (Heyward, 2004). For the purposes of this study, it is
defined as ―…the shared way of life of a group of people‖ (Berry, Poortinga, Segall &
Dasen 1992, p. 167).
In the context of educational change, culture may be construed as national, the culture of
the nation, societal, the culture of regional and social groups within the nation, or
bureaucratic, the culture of government and the bureaucracy including the education
system. Relevant Indonesian cultural values and constructs were discussed in Chapter
One.
The questions relevant to this study, are how do these culture contexts relate to teachers‘
thinking and practice? How does culture influence the relationships and behaviours of
children and teachers in the classroom? How does culture relate to the thinking and
practice of government officials and local supervisors? What role do supervisors perceive
for themselves and for teachers? What is the role of state apparatus in defining truth and
knowledge? Culture plays a significant role in the conception and development of
knowledge and beliefs in individuals. This influences the very notion of knowledge and
beliefs prevailing within a given society.
129
Cross-cultural analysis from other academic fields is relevant to the present study. Some
of the most relevant studies are described below.
Ginsberg and colleagues‘ (2004) social work text draws on biology, going directly to
different notions of intelligence and their cultural implications for schooling (Ginsberg,
Nackerud, Larrison, 2004). Ginsberg noted that the Western cultural emphasis on speed
of mental processing is not shared by many cultures, which may even be suspicious of the
quality of work done very quickly and emphasise depth rather than speed of processing.
For example, the Chinese Confucian perspective emphasises benevolence and doing what
is right, so that the intelligent person spends much effort in learning, enjoys learning and
persists in lifelong learning with enthusiasm, while the Taoist tradition emphasises the
importance of humility, freedom from conventional standards of judgement, and full
knowledge of oneself and external conditions. The authors noted that, ―...the importance
of culture in the social construction of a theory of intelligence cannot be overestimated.
Reasoning skills, both verbal and nonverbal, ... social skills, oratory ability, numerical
skills, and memory are just examples of the exhaustive list of cognitive skills that can go
on any list of what it takes to be intelligent in any particular culture‖ (Ginsberg,
Nackerud, Larrison, 2004, p. 100).
Culture thus influences understandings of the nature of knowledge, intelligence and how
people learn. In traditional societies, such as mainstream Indonesia, knowledge is seen as
a commodity possessed by learned people, scholars, religious leaders and teachers;
130
something existing outside of the individual to be ‗mastered‘ (Dardjowidjono, 2001;
Magnis Suseno, 1997; Tabulawa, 1997). The role of a student then is to acquire this
knowledge; ‗sitting at the feet of the guru‘ and passively following instructions, dictating
notes and repeating revealed facts. Contemporary western notions of knowledge as
constructed by the learner are alien to this cultural framework.
Other relevant cultural studies including the seminal work of Industrialist anthropologist
Hofstede (1991) who characterized national cultures along the dimensions of
individualism-collectivism; uncertainty avoidance; power distance (strength of social
hierarchy) and masculinity-femininity (task orientation versus person-orientation). Like
other traditional Asian societies, Indonesian culture is characterized as collectivist, high
uncertainty avoidance, high power distance and high person orientation. The findings of a
study by Dorfman and House (2004) place Indonesia in the ‗Southern Asian‘ cluster
along with India, Iran, Malaysia, the Philippines and Thailand (see also Bond, Leung,
Tong, de Carrasquel, & Murakami, 2004).
In the context of educational change, this means that society is very hierarchical. Children
are seen as low status. Critical thinking and questioning of authority are regarded as
inappropriate. Similarly, teachers are lower status than supervisors and bureaucrats and
are expected to follow instructions without question or complaint. Children (and teachers)
typically learn in groups. Individual learning is uncommon in this context.
131
As described above, Indonesia‘s policy on active learning, including the regulations
concerning curriculum and pedagogy, and the draft national Competency Based
Curriculum which preceded these are, to a significant extent, derived from similar
policies and practices adopted in western contexts, including the UK and Australia.
The research into implementation of ‗imported‘ reforms in Asia is limited. Among those
studies which do provide useful insights are Bjork‘s (2003) study of bureaucratic culture
and education reform in East Java, Hallinger and Kantamara‘s (2001) study of culture
and school improvement in Thailand, Stephens‘ (2007) study of bilateral assistance to
education in Indonesia, and Clarke‘s (2003) study of culture and educational reform in
India. All of these explore the impact of local cultural factors in implementation of
educational reforms. As Hallinger and Kantamara (2001) assert: ‗…cultural differences
represent at least as significant a contextual factor with respect to the salience and
implementation of findings on school effectiveness and improvement.‘ (Hallinger &
Kantamara, 2001, p. 405).
In summary, a strong relationship is evident between societal culture, policy, practice and
real change in the classroom. A number of cultural constructs have been identified in the
literature as relevant to a consideration of educational reform in Indonesia. The key
aspects were discussed in the previous chapter. These may be loosely grouped as follows:
1. Collectivist society, tendency to act and think in groups, acceptance of
regulation
2. Teaching regarded as a duty
132
3. Hierarchical society, acceptance and reverence for authority, valuing of
obedience; high power distance
4. Knowledge seen as collectively accumulated, attested and transferred
5. Conflict avoidance, valuing of harmony
6. Nation and institutions modelled on the family
When central government policy mandates curricula and pedagogical reforms requiring
students to become active learners and critical thinkers, all of these cultural constraints
must be understood and negotiated. Policy makers, bureaucrats, administrators and
educational practitioners need to be aware of the constraints as well as the potentially
supportive factors. The potential of the societal cultural constructs discussed above to
define the interaction between teachers and students, teachers and principals, principals
and school supervisors and others must be understood if the policy is to take effect.
Conclusion
This chapter reviewed the literature relating to the study of educational change and efforts
to implement active learning in Indonesian schools. The chapter followed a conceptual
framework based on three perspectives of change: the technical, political and cultural
(House & McQuillan, 1998). In order to provide a theoretical context for the study, four
broad areas of literature were surveyed: (1) literature relating to active learning and its
definition, (2) literature relating to the technical perspective: especially teacher
professional development, (3) literature relating to the political perspective: educational
change and policy development, and (4) literature related to the role of societal culture
133
and the nature of Asian and specifically traditional Indonesian cultures in relation to
education and change.
The insights gained from the literature surveyed, including empirical studies and theories
of reform, provide a basis for analysis of the case study. This study seeks to explain the
gap between policy and practice, through factors such as: (1) innovation incompatibility,
(2) policy clarity and consistency, and (3) implementation feasibility issues. This includes
technical, political, and cultural perspectives, both at individual teachers‘ and systemic
levels. These perspectives may be applied to analysis of the actions of implementing
agents of teaching reform at schools and classroom levels in the Indonesian primary
school system.
A reform perspective which combines technical, political, economic, and socio-cultural
aspects is employed as an analytical approach to this study (Clark, 2003; Fullan, 2001;
Hallinger & Leithwood, 1996; House & McQuillan, 1998; Rogers, 1995).
Much of the literature surveyed makes reference to the context of change, to the political
relationships determined by funding assistance between developed and developing
nations and the globalization of education policy, and to the social and cultural contexts
of educational policy and change, and the significance of this for implementation.
Education development in Indonesia is mostly funded by foreign assistance. Policy and
education change, including curriculum and pedagogical innovations such as active
learning, are, it is argued, a result of policy importation. The consequence is that
134
Indonesia‘s policies, including the policy on active learning, have not typically been fully
developed in a collaborative manner involving local professionals, academics and
politicians, they have not arisen from or taken account of the local cultural context, and
they have not typically been implemented in a technically effective way or supported by a
well-designed and well-delivered teacher professional development.
The following chapter will describe the methodological approach taken to a case study of
policy implementation, specifically the implementation of an active learning pedagogy, in
a group of primary schools in the remote islands of North Maluku in Eastern Indonesia.
This methodology incorporates the conceptual framework described here as a theoretical
basis for the case study analysis.
135
Chapter 3: Methodology
136
Introduction
This chapter outlines the research approach and method selected to answer the two
research questions explained in Chapter One, including the techniques for data collection
and analysis. The chapter also provides a description and discussion of ethics, sampling,
tools for gathering data, and issues of reliability and validity, including methodological
constraints and how these were addressed. The selection of the case, the selection of
participants, and the experiences and itineraries adopted during fieldwork in the districts
in the Province of North Maluku are defined. Finally, the approach to data analysis and
its interpretation are discussed. This study attempts to unravel the interplay of technical,
political, and cultural aspects that make policy implementation in Indonesian primary
schools a highly complex endeavour (House & McQuillan, 1998).
The questions as posed earlier, together with the diversity of the context, warrant the use
of what is referred to as case study design (Yin, 2003). Using Stake‘s (2000) term
‗collective case studies‘, this investigation is an instrumental exercise providing insight
into issues associated with decades of failed implementation of school reform in
Indonesia.
To investigate how the reform policy is translated, at the class level, the unit of analysis is
the teacher, and, at the school level, the principal. By observing what happens in the
classroom, examining students‘ activities and their interaction, a judgment about
implementation can be made. At this level, the main issue to address is the extent to
137
which teachers‘ and principals‘ stated beliefs and intentions align with the government
policy on active learning, and the extent to which their behaviours align with their stated
beliefs and intentions.
Since implementation does not take place in a vacuum, it is also critical to seek various
contributing factors when judgments are made about it. The contributing factors in this
study include: (1) technical factors such as knowledge, understanding, and skills required
for the new practices; (2) the political aspects accompanying any reforms, often involving
shifts in power, and emergence of equity issues; and (3) the cultural factors associated
with beliefs about children and how they learn. All of these are factors in implementation
that could provide explanations are identified and will be further discussed.
Whilst class and school are the main levels of analysis, there are other units for the
study‘s findings. These other levels include: (1) at the school cluster and district levels –
professional development agencies charged with assisting schools in the implementation
stage; and (2) at the national level - the rationale or development of thinking that led to
the adoption and implementation of the new curriculum. A multi-method approach
(Patton, 1990), comprising both qualitative and quantitative methods, has been adopted
for this study. Altogether four major research methods are used, namely: (1) document
analysis; (2) survey questionnaire; (3) semi-structured interview and informal
discussions; (4) and field visits to schools to enable classroom observation.
138
These research methods were chosen on the basis that they best address the two research
questions. The advantage that can be gained by using the above methods is the ability to
collect data from a wide range of sources on different aspects of the study. This increases
the internal validity of the study as it promotes triangulation (Miles & Huberman, 1994;
Stake, 1995; Yin, 2003). Both quantitative and qualitative methods are used to analyse
the data gathered during the project.
Given various limitations on finance, time and resources associated with conducting a
doctoral study, together with the need to limit the focus for methodological clarity and to
enable an in-depth analysis, two schools were selected. The selection criteria and process
for these schools are described later in this chapter.
Research approach
In this section the underpinning philosophy and the research approach taken are
discussed, along with the researcher‘s experience during fieldwork in the district of
Tidore and the neighbouring districts of South and West Halmahera. The approach
aimed to support a study of how a centrally-mandated policy did or did not have impact
on teachers‘ practices at remote schools in the country. The methodology enables an
examination of how education, teaching and learning in schools, and in particular
teachers‘ behaviours, are shaped by a host of complex factors, including economic and
socio-cultural factors, such as religion, and politics. These factors at play in policy
implementation in the local context are little understood and yet they have real impact
on the success of education policy enactment.
139
This approach aligns with Heaton‘s (2004) description of the key features of qualitative
research: (1) an emphasis on ‗seeing through the eyes of‘ the people being studied
(Heaton, 2004 p. 55); (2) description of the social setting being investigated; (3)
examination of social behaviour and events in their historical and social context; (4)
examination of the process by which social life is accomplished (rather than the end
products or outcomes of interaction); (5) adoption of a flexible and unstructured
approach to social enquiry, allowing researchers to modify and adapt their approach as
need be in the course of the research; and (6) reliance on theories and concepts that have
been derived from the data (rather than defined in advanced) (Heaton, 2004, p. 55).
The choice of a predominately qualitative research design and, in particular, a case
study methodology was determined by the nature of the research questions. The use of a
qualitative approach rather than a quantitative approach, and specifically the use of a
case study approach, has the advantage of providing a rich description of the realities as
faced by practitioners and policy actors (Merriam, 1997).
The two questions and the approach were, to some extent, determined by the type of
research conducted previously in the field in Indonesia. As mentioned in the previous
chapters, independent research into the implementation of reforms in teaching practice
in Indonesia has been limited. The research which does exist has generally adopted a
survey approach in which participants are asked to complete a written questionnaire and
results are collated to produce generalizable findings. Very little qualitative case study
140
research has been conducted in Indonesian education. Meanwhile, the more common
quantitative survey-based approaches are unable to provide credible answers to the
questions asked in this study. It is not possible to determine the extent to which active
learning pedagogies have been adopted in Indonesian schools without actually taking
the time to observe the practice. Similarly, using survey methodology, it is not possible
to determine the complex sets of factors – political, cultural and technical - which may
affect policy implementation, or the interplay between them. Only through a qualitative
case study is it possible to provide plausible answers to these questions.
Qualitative researchers stress the socially constructed nature of reality, the intimate
relationship between the researcher and what is studied, and the situational constraints
that shape inquiry. The political and value-laden nature of research is emphasized.
Qualitative research seeks answers to questions that stress how social experience is
created and given meaning (Denzin & Lincoln, 2000). Qualitative study is necessarily
situated within a social and historical setting (Greene, 2000). Denzin and Lincoln
(2000) argue that ―...qualitative researchers study things in natural settings, attempting to
make sense of, or to interpret, phenomena in terms of the meanings people bring to them.‖
(Denzin & Lincoln, 2000, p. 3). The purpose of the approach is to produce what Geertz
(1973) famously described as ‗thick description‘ of the multiplicity of complex
conceptual structures including unspoken and taken-for-granted assumptions about
cultural life.
From the outset, the extent of my status as ‗one of their own‘ was clear to me and to the
respondents involved. This was a result of my sharing the same ethnicity, language,
141
food, and even religion, with many of the respondents – particularly with those with
whom, as researcher, I conducted extensive interviews and observations. To some other
respondents, particularly those in the neighbouring districts of West and South
Halmahera, it was also clear that I did not live in their area and had come to visit them
purely in order to conduct research. To a significant extent, it is this status afforded to
me as both ‗one of their own‘ and one who has had professional experience as an
outsider that gave me the access required to conduct this study, to understand, to unearth
and interpret the cultural and professional perspectives of respondents.
My strength as an insider-researcher lies in the critical perspective that the situation
afforded me, in particular when discussions were held on problems the teacher
respondents had in their in-service and teaching. To this extent, I was a participant-
observer. As a result, entrée into my own locale was easier as compared to that of an
outsider. As an insider researcher I was familiar with the meanings attached to words,
acts and symbols of the researched community, the local language used and its
accompanying euphemisms.
On the other hand, all researchers are in a sense, outsiders, since they have an
agenda that is additional to any participation which they have in the activities
that are the subject of their research. The temporary status of the researcher as
both insider and outsider needs to be recognized and accepted by the research
subjects and respondents, if the activity is not to be compromised. Burgess
(1991) states that many of the characteristics of the researcher such as age, sex,
142
social class and status, and ethnicity, can and do have an important impact on
whether access is granted or withheld. During the research process it is
inevitable and important that the researcher will come to know some individuals
better than others. Friendships made during the research project can significantly
affect which avenues of access are opened and closed during the research
process.
It is important to clarify the role of the researcher in terms of ‗positionality‘ in
this context. In addition to acting as a researcher in this study, I held a number of
roles within the education system. When conducting the initial study of school
clusters, I represented ‗Save the Children‘, an international non-government
organization. I also presented myself as a teacher and a research student when
conducting all of the data collection and field work. While acting as an ‗insider-
outsider‘ as described above, I was able to maintain a degree of objectivity
through the process of verifying key findings and interpretations as discussed in
the section on Validty, Trustworthiness and Triangulation later in this chapter.
In a qualitative study the investigator is the primary instrument for gathering and
analysing data and therefore the role of the researcher is critical to data interpretation
(Merriam, 1997). The researcher‘s personal and professional background is discussed
below, as the researcher‘s own philosophical orientations and underpinnings,
worldviews, sensibilities and theoretical interests helped to shape the approach to
collection and interpretation of the data. As a social researcher, my own epistemological
143
views necessarily underpin the research. What is the nature of knowledge and knowing?
It is important that these views are made explicit in order that the reader can evaluate the
research. I believe that knowledge is socially and culturally constructed. People live in
groups (nations, ethnic groups, local communities) and it is through these groups that, as
individuals, we make meaning of our lives and experiences. This includes our
understandings of work, of education, of teaching and learning. My own view of
knowledge as socially constructed is at variance with those of mainstream Indonesian
society, where knowledge is typically viewed as absolute and external to the knower and
to the society. In this view, knowledge is acquired by learning from a knowledgeable
person. Ultimately knowledge is revealed, in a religious sense, rather than constructed.
To the extent that this research aims to expose the political and cultural
dimensions of education reform as well as technical aspects, and ultimately to
promote change, it may be regarded as ‗critical research‘ (Kincheloe &
McLaren, 2000). As a critical researcher, I entered into this investigation with
assumptions on the table, for example, that in the Indonesian education system,
more often than not, teachers do get blamed when innovations at schools do not
work as expected or, worse, fail.
At the same time, the notion of self-reflection is central to an understanding of
the nature of critical qualitative research. It was not my intention to approach the
collection and analysis of data with a pre-determined theoretical perspective or
understanding of the various factors impacting on the success of policy
144
enactment in schools located in remote education districts in Indonesia. I had
envisaged a study that would draw upon the views and perceptions of those
people who were intimately involved in teaching and learning in these schools in
the post-reform era. This approach honours the legitimacy of practitioner
knowledge and, particularly in this context, the culturally specific
understandings of teachers.
Critical research can be best understood in the context of the empowerment of
individuals and groups. Inquiry in critical research is an attempt to confront the
injustices of a particular society or sphere within the society (Burton, 2000).
Research in the critical tradition takes the form of self-conscious criticism, self-
conscious in the sense that researchers try to become aware of ideological
imperatives and epistemological presuppositions that inform their research as
well as their own subjective, inter-subjective, and normative reference claims
(Burton, 2000; Kincheloe & McLaren, 2000). Interpretation is political and
subjective.
This raises the issue of subjectivity. There could of course be some elements of
subjectivity in my observation as an insider, because no social activity is
completely value-free. Our cultural biases as researchers and the pre-occupations of
our time and place are extended into our observations as so much prejudice. Most
social research is political, value-laden, and researchers take sides in research
(Giroux, 1983; Kincheloe & McLaren, 2000). According to Denzin and Lincoln
145
(1998), the era of value-free and neutral inquiry for the human disciplines is over.
The process of interpretation, according to Habermas (1990), is inevitably tied to
the horizons or value judgments of the interpreter.
In this study, it is the researcher‘s status as an insider, investigating the familiar system
of her own professional community that enabled the treatment of familiar things as
outstanding as opposed to normal. According to Denzin and Lincoln (1998) ―...every
researcher speaks within a distinctive interpretive community, which configures, in its
special way, the multicultural, gendered components of the research acts.‖ (Denzin &
Lincoln, 1998, p. 23). It is the researcher‘s role in this context to give meaning to
normal events, to put them in a larger political and theoretical perspective, as well as
with the familiarity of the insider. For example, the politics of national policy and the
dialogue around education quality in Indonesia have tended to run along familiar
grooves. Attention is rarely given to the perspective of the practitioner and frequently
teachers are blamed for the problem of low quality. ‗Mental guru‘ or ‗teacher mentality‘
is cited as the cause of implementation failure. This ‗blame the teacher game‘ is played
by education authorities from the central ministry down to the level of the local
supervisor and school principal. It is also often implicit in the research approaches and
findings of Indonesian studies, which take the perspective of the outsider, located
outside and above the world of the teacher (e.g., Utomo, 2005; Yulaelawati, 1996). It is
in this context that the ‗art and politics‘ of research and data interpretation come to the
fore.
146
Ethics approval, protocols and entry to the field
An ethics approval with reference number H9258 (see Appendix 1) was obtained in 2007
after all the required forms were completed and submitted to the University of
Tasmania‘s Ethics Committee (Human Experimentation). This process addressed the
important ethical and procedural issues around conducting research in general and,
specifically, conducting social research in schools. This was followed by a series of
letters including an invitation (see Appendix 2), information sheet about the study (see
Appendix 3), and consent forms (see Appendix 4) all of which were translated into
Indonesian before they were given to the teachers, principals, local education
administrators, and education bureaucrats in the Ministry of Education and Culture.
Normal procedure in Indonesia requires the supervising institution, in this case the
Faculty of Education, University of Tasmania, to send a notification letter to the
institution in which the research subjects work. This institution is the Ministry of
National Education of the Republic of Indonesia. Because of the change from centralized
to decentralized government and to expedite the otherwise long-winded process, the same
notification letter was sent to several directorates and units under the Ministry (see
Appendix 5).
To date, no formal requirement exists for ethics approval to conduct educational research
in Indonesia and, accordingly, there is no office in Indonesia that gives ethics approval
for the conduct of research in schools. However, although ‗formal‘ permission is not
147
required, this notification letter was sent to meet administrative requirements and as a
matter of courtesy. Below are the offices to which the letter was sent:
1. Balai Penelitian dan Pengembangan-Balitbang (Office of Research and
Development Centre),
2. Pusat Kurikulum (Curriculum Centre),
3. Badan Standar Nasional Pendidikan-BNSP (Office of National education
Standard),
4. Lembaga Penjamin Mutu Pendidikan (The Institute of Quality Assurance),
5. Direktorat Jenderal Manajemen Pendidikan Dasar (Directorate General of Basic
Education Management), and
6. Direktorat Jenderal Pembinaan Mutu dan Tenaga Kependidikan (Directorate
General of Quality Improvement and Education Personnel).
The same letter was also submitted to the three district education offices. As a matter of
courtesy, the researcher followed up the letters, by making visits to the designated
offices. The next step was for the researcher to visit and approach the schools.
Approaches to teachers and students were conducted through the principal. In most cases,
the principal spoke to teachers and arranged a meeting. The researcher attended the
meeting and was introduced by the principal to the teaching staff.
Research method and design: case study
The qualitative case study allows a variety of methods to enable data to be gathered from
an array of sources in a variety of ways (Wolcott, 1994). A research design was adopted,
148
based on that suggested by Yin (1989; 2003) for case study research, although with some
modifications. Figure 3.1, below, outlines the operational procedures used to collect the
data as well as the sequence of, and the relationship between, these procedures. The
process of designing the research and the collection and analysis of data took place in
continuum. Each activity fed into the others, as illustrated in the diagram. Various mini-,
or brief, case studies were conducted in order to provide newer and richer details on the
various factors in the district educational landscape.
Figure 3.1: Case Study Research Design (adapted from Yin)
Adapted from Yin (1989, 2003).
Having adopted the model illustrated above, the research design, data collection and
analysis took place over the five-year period of the researcher‘s doctoral study.
The data collection took place in the field (North Maluku and Jakarta) over a period of
Select
cases
Design
case
study
Policy implications
Contribution to
theory and
academic
literature
Observations
Interview
Document
review
Survey
Thematic analysis
of transcripts and
field notes
Document
analysis
Survey analysis
Literature
review
Case
description
Country
background
Write
conclusions Articulate
research
questions
Collect
data Analyse
data Write
case
report
DESIGN PREPARE, COLLECT, ANALYSE ANALYSE, CONCLUDE
Initial
literature
scan
149
four months: May-August, 2007. As illustrated in the above figure, data analysis
commenced in tandem with the data collection. The first stage of data analysis thus took
place in the field as the researcher reflected on information and comments provided, and
observations made, verified and explored these with the participants and refined the
views and interpretations of data in the field. The flexibility that this afforded enabled
the collection of a richer data set and stronger, triangulated findings. The main period of
data analysis then followed over a five-year period, during which time the researcher
completed the literature review, collected further data from national level sources (as the
policy and reform process evolved further) and undertook a detailed analysis of the field
data using a range of techniques and tools described below. Finally, the analysis was
completed with the writing up of this thesis.
Sampling
This study is a multiple-site case study. The case consisted of a group of schools and
school clusters spread across three districts in the province of North Maluku. The
selection of this case was partly opportunistic and partly purposive (Burns, 2000). The
researcher‘s travel was funded by Save the Children UK along with an initial study of
the school cluster system for teacher professional development. Prior to this initial study,
a document analysis and desk study of the 2004 Competency-Based Curriculum
(Kurikulum Berbasis Kompetensi or KBK) had also been undertaken by the researcher
(Sopantini, 2004). It was the intention of this research to focus on implementation of
reform in a remote area of Indonesia. This choice was made in light of the common
practice, mentioned earlier, of conducting studies in the more populated and better
150
served island of Java, where many of the leading universities are located.
For the current study, three districts were purposefully selected on the basis of their
remoteness and level of prosperity. As an addition to being geographically isolated and
relatively far from the capital city of Jakarta, the three districts of Tidore Kepulauan,
South and West Halmahera are economically disadvantaged districts in the province of
North Maluku. Located in eastern Indonesia where access poses real logistic and
financial problems, these districts have received less government support in the form of
quality improvement projects than is typical in the less isolated regions. The city of
Tidore Kepulauan is comprised of the two islands of Ternate and Tidore. These islands
are isolated from the other districts by sea. One must travel by boat to reach the schools
in many districts in North Maluku. Whilst many boats run regularly on the main routes,
travel to some districts and schools is more complicated, time-consuming and costly.
For instance, to reach MIS Awanggo and Indomut Satu one has to charter a private boat.
An overnight ferry runs daily from the port in Ternate, the capital of North Maluku
province to Bacan, South Halmahera. Similarly people take smaller boats from Ternate
to Jailolo, West Halmahera. While boat transport is common between islands, most
people use motor bikes for land transportation. During the field visits I also relied on
such modes of transport.
Selecting the districts and school clusters
In this section, the process and criteria for selecting school clusters, schools, classrooms
and individuals informants from within the case are discussed. It was not the intention of
151
the researcher to take a representative or random sample of schools or individuals.
Rather, the sampling was purposive as described, and to some extent opportunistic and
guided by the question of access within this a remote and underdeveloped part of
Indonesia.
A total of eight primary school clusters was selected (including one combined group in
Tidore), spread across the three districts: the City of Tidore Islands, South Halmahera and
West Halmahera. Although the sampling was not intended to be representative, the
selection intentionally included a mix of urban or rural school clusters. Furthermore,
clusters of medium size rather than unusually small or large clusters were intentionally
selected. The clusters studied were as follows:
Table 3.1: Schools and Clusters Sampled in North Maluku Province
District
(Kabupa-
ten/Kota)
Sub-
district
(Kecam-
atan)
Cluster
(Gugus)
Schools in the Cluster
(Sekolah/madrasah)
Sampled schools
Tidore
Kepulauan
Tidore
Gugus 5
4 schools: 1 core and 3 satellite
schools, including two madrasah
(rural)
SDN Indonesiana
2 *
SDN Soasio 2 *
SDN Indonesiana 1
Combined
gugus **
***
20 schools: 1 core and 19
satellite schools (urban)
North
Tidore
Gugus 1
***
5 schools: 1 core and 4 satellite
schools (urban)
SDN Mafututu,
SDN Rum, SDN
Mareku 2
152
Gugus 3
6 schools: 1 core and 5 satellite
schools, including two madrasah
(Islamic) (rural).
South
Halmahera
Bacan Gugus 1
5 schools: 1 core and 4 satellite
schools, all of which were
public and no madrasah (urban)
East
Bacan Gugus 6
6 schools: 1 core and 5 satellite
schools, including 2 madrasah
schools (rural)
SDN Indomut,
SDI Babang, SDN
Wayamiga
West
Halmahera
Jailolo
Gugus 1
4 schools: 1 core and 3 satellite
schools including one madrasah.
(urban)
MIS Acango
Gugus 5
4 schools: 1 core and 3 satellite
schools including one madrasah.
(rural)
3 5 8 54 10
* Detailed observations were conducted in the two ‗detailed observation schools‘: SDN
Indonesiana 2 and SDN Soasio 2
**A survey was conducted in the combined gugus meeting and in schools in Tidore.
*** Cluster in-service training observations were conducted in the combined gugus, in Tidore,
and Gugus 1, North Tidore.
Selecting the schools
In Table 3.1, above, the abbreviation SD refers to Sekolah Dasar or ‗primary school‘.
Indonesia primary schools cater for children aged 6 to 12 in six grades, 1-6. SDN refers
to Sekolah Dasar Negeri (state primary school), SDI refers to Sekolah Dasar Inpres (a
153
state primary school established under the Presidential Instruction in the 1970s), and MIS
refers to Madrasah Ibtidiayah Swasta, a private Islamic primary school.
Four types of observation were conducted, namely: (1) observation of the implementation
of in-service training for teachers in school clusters, (2) observation of meetings of
principals and supervisors, (3) informal observation of schools and classes, and (4)
structured observation of learning activities in classes. A survey was also conducted
among teachers at a combined cluster meeting in Tidore.
The observations of cluster teacher in-service training took place in a combined school
cluster meeting in SDN Soasia 2, Tidore, and in Cluster 1, at SD Mafututu, North Tidore.
Two coordination meetings were observed: a meeting of school principals in the sub-
district office in Tidore, and a meeting of school teachers and principals in SDN Soasio 2,
Tidore. These activities were selected for observation as they were scheduled to take
place during the field visit.
Unstructured school and classroom observations were conducted in ten schools listed in
Table 3.1, above. These ten schools were selected from the clusters as illustrated in Table
3.1, above. This is a sample of approximately 18 per cent. The schools were selected
partly on the basis of access and partly on the basis of maximum variation, a type of
purposeful sampling (Merriam, 1997). The essential criterion of selection was whether or
not the school could serve as a tool to maximize what the researcher wanted to learn. The
constraints of budget and time, accessibility and feasibility also were important criteria.
154
The uniqueness and contexts of the selected schools were considered to ensure that the
selected schools would include a variety.
Two of the ten schools were selected for more in-depth observation, interviews and
detailed, structured classroom observations: SDN Indonesiana 2 and SDN Soasio 2.
These are referred to as ‗detailed observation schools‘. They were selected on the basis of
ease of access and to include one ‗favourite‘ school and one regular school. Both were
located near to where the researcher was billeted during the field work period. This
enabled a detailed observation of the schools and their community settings. Indonesian
schools are loosely categorized into ‗favourite‘ schools and regular schools. This
categorization is based on the popularity of the schools, but implies more than this.
‗Sekolah favorit‘ or ‗favourite schools‘ are typically located in urban centres, cater to
local elites, and receive favoured treatment in terms of funding and staffing. In any given
district, the great majority of schools are regarded as ‗regular‘, while one or two
‗favourite‘ schools may be clearly identified.
The classification of the schools as favourite and regular in this sample was determined
through consultation with teachers, based on the economic status of parents which was
largely determined by their employment.
Parents of children in SDN Indonesiana 2 were mainly professionals: civil servants,
including teachers (about half), traders (about one quarter), employees (about one fifth),
while the remaining group included farmers and laborers. Meanwhile the pattern was
155
reversed in SDN Soasio 2, where the occupation of most parents was either farming,
laboring, or fishing, while less than one-fifth were employed as civil servants, including
teachers, less than one-tenth as traders, and none as business people.
A third reason for sampling these two schools was an assessment of readiness for policy
implementation. SDN Soasio 2 was chosen because this was the only SD in the cluster
which had written evidence of its readiness to implement the policy (in this case, in the
form of KTSP, which was explained in Chapter One). Meanwhile SDN Indonesiana 2 did
not have documentary evidence of preparation to implement KTSP.
While it was originally intended that detailed observations would be conducted in all
classes (six classes in each of the two schools), in the event only four classes were
observed. This was because the schools were preoccupied at the time by two annual
events: preparation for the national examinations (for grade six) and final semester
examinations (for grade three, four, and five), and the national Independence Day; the
students require a lot of practice in marching for the annual competition.
The survey sample
The questionnaire survey was completed by a total of 47 respondents in Tidore. Some 26
respondents completed the survey during a teacher meeting in Tidore. The routine
meeting of several clusters of teachers provided an excellent opportunity for the
researcher to explain the research and the survey and administer the questionnaire. In
addition, the survey was completed by a further 21 individuals at various times during the
156
field study period. These included interview respondents and teachers who taught lessons
where detailed classroom observations were made. All were from Tidore.
Selecting individuals for interview
The selection of individuals for interviews followed the same pattern as school cluster
and school selection. The sampling was both purposive and opportunistic. Individuals
were interviewed from the national, provincial, district and school levels in order to
gather data to answer the two research questions. Individuals were selected partly on the
basis of access, but more purposefully on the basis that they were likely to have insights
useful to the study. At the school and district levels, individuals were selected also where
a rapport had been established with the researcher.
At the school and district level, two school supervisors, one principal and ten teachers
were interviewed. At the system level, four national-level Ministry personnel, including
the Director General of Basic Education, were interviewed. At the province level, four
personnel were interviewed, including one senior official from the Provincial Education
Office and three personnel from the national, province-level, teacher training centre,
known as the Education Quality Assurance Agency (Lembaga Penjaminan Mutu
Pendidikan or LPMP) and, at the district level, four personnel, including the Head of the
District Education Office in Tidore were interviewed.
157
Data collection
Although this study was undertaken at various levels of the education system (classroom
and school, school cluster, district and national level), a much greater focus was given to
the classroom and school levels. The following section describes the different types of
data collection conducted at the different levels.
A range of data sources and types was used: (1) documentary and archival sources for
historical data; (2) a written survey; (3) interviews; and (4) observations of activity in
the field, particularly in classrooms. This section describes the data sources and data
gathering techniques used to address each of the two research questions.
The multiple techniques used to collect data had the advantage of indicating gaps in the
data set which an insider-researcher could easily have glossed over. The approach also
allowed triangulation between different types of data (survey, interview and document
and observation) as well as different data sources (individual teachers and officials).
Documents surveyed included national policy documents, national curriculum
statements, government documents relating to technical implementation, and historical
and contemporary reports from donor-funded projects.
The data gathering techniques employed varied according to the situation: survey
(Appendix 6), observation (Appendix 7), structured and unstructured interviews
(Appendices 8 and 9), and review of documentary and archival material. Interviewing has
158
the advantage of giving the researcher direct contact and interaction with informants and
respondents. The interviewer is, therefore, more likely to understand the interviewee‘s
frame of reference. During the period of field research in North Maluku, the researcher
lived in the home of one of the informant teachers and spent considerable periods of time
in informal discussion and direct observation of the personal and professional lives of this
community of teachers and education administrators. Each of the data collection methods
is discussed below: document analysis, survey, observations, and interviews.
Document Analysis
As described in Table 3.2, below, a range of documents was considered.
Table 3.2: Document Analysis
Data Sources &
Instruments
Research
Respondents /
Sources
Sampling Notes Geographical Notes
Policy documents
issued by the national
government
(Curriculum Centre
and Directorate
General of Basic
Education /Ditjen
ManDikDasMen)
Three reports issued
by The Curriculum
Centre plus a set of
guidelines for
school-based
curriculum
development
Documents relevant
to implementation at
school level
Jakarta
Documents
issued/written by
teachers
A total of 18 lesson
plan documents
handwritten by
teachers
Two schools from
different school
clusters were
sampled. Three
teachers from these
schools produced the
lesson plan
documents.
SD Soasio 2 - Tidore
159
Documents
issued/written by
students
A total of seven
students‘ work
samples
Samples from four
lessons observed:
one sample from
grade one maths
lesson, five samples
from grade four
social studies lesson,
one sample from
grade six science
lesson
SD Soasio 2 - Tidore
Documents at school
level: issued/written
by school teachers
and principals
Six handwritten
meeting minutes
One of the two
schools was chosen
for observation of a
school meeting
Meeting observation
focused at SD
Soasio 2 - Tidore
As above One school-based
curriculum
document
This was the only
one available in the
district at the time
SD Soasio 2 - Tidore
Documents issued by
sub-district
government
One document on of
annual student
examination
Sub-district of
Tidore
Chapter One listed a number of government policies and curriculum documents. These
were analysed to clarify the context and issues associated with policy change and its
implementation. This included a curriculum document entitled Competency-Based
Curriculum (Kurikulum Berbasis Kompetensi or KBK). At the time of the analysis, this
curriculum was promoted and several schools were chosen as by the government to trial
the curriculum. At that time, a legal decision on this policy was yet to be made.
Subsequently the government issued a number of other documents that mandated schools
to adopt a different curriculum approach, which came to be known as KTSP (Kurikulum
Tingkat Satuan Pendidikan or School-Based Curriculum). The previous Competency-
Based Curriculum was never ratified and the decision to adopt KTSP was made by the
160
central government in March 2006. Analysis was conducted on these policy documents,
which included (1) Permendiknas No. 22, 2006 (Ministerial Decree No. 22. 2006), (2)
Permendiknas No. 23, (Ministerial Decree No. 23. 2006), and (3) Permendiknas No. 24
(Ministerial Decree No. 24. 2006) (Ministry of National Education, 2006b; 2006c;
2006d).
All of these documents come in the form of ministerial decrees which are lower in the
hierarchy of law in Indonesia. Other documents higher in the hierarchy that were
analysed include: (1) Peraturan Pemerintah No. 19, 2005 (Government Regulation No.
19. 2005), and (2) Undang Undang No. 20, 2003 (Law No 20. 2003) (Government of
Indonesia 2005; 2003).
Survey questionnaire
A survey, which took approximately thirty minutes to complete, was administered to a
total of 47 teachers and principals (see Appendix 1). Some 26 respondents completed the
survey at a combined teacher cluster meeting, while the remaining 21 completed the
survey separately. Included in this group were the teachers and principals of the detailed
observation schools (see Table 3.1, above).
Table 3.3: Survey data collection
Data Sources &
Instruments
Research
Respondents /
Sources
Sampling Notes Geographical Notes
Survey In total 47 teachers
and two principals
Two schools from
different school
All of these schools
were located in the
161
completed the survey clusters were
sampled. From these
two schools, ten
teachers and two
principals
participated in both
the survey and
interviews and four
of these were
observed their
classes in detail.
District of Tidore
Kepulauan and the
sub-district of Tidore
This survey questionnaire was administered while investigating the two case study
schools. As demonstrated in the forty-five items of the questionnaire, the main purpose
was to find out whether or not teachers and principals had knowledge of basic facts about
issues relevant to the policy on active learning in the context of the new curriculum such
as what it requires of teachers and principals to do to implement it. Knowing the level of
teachers‘ and principals‘ understanding about basic facts helped to provide the researcher
with clues on what questions that needed probing and thus what to include in the
subsequent interviews. This helped ensure that maximum information was obtained from
each of the in-depth interviews that were conducted with teachers and principals in the
case study schools.
To ensure appropriate language and expression, the draft questionnaire and interview
instruments were trialled with an expert in Indonesian language and culture, Prof.
Barbara Hartley, and a principal from Tidore. These two provided advice on language,
appropriate terminology and ease of understanding. Only minor alterations were made in
response to feedback.
162
The researcher was present and distributed the questionnaire to the participants. In the
Indonesian context, conducting a survey with personal presence is more promising for a
higher return than administering the survey remotely, such as, for example, sending it
through the post.
Observations
The main issue at the school level was to examine teaching practices in the class and
identify possible barriers to implementation. To investigate how the reform policy was
translated into practice by the teachers, it was critical to examine what happens in the
classroom.
Table 3.4: Classroom observations
Data Sources &
Instruments
Research
Respondents /
Sources
Sampling Notes Geographical Notes
School observations
and brief ‗unplanned
and unstructured‘
lesson observations
In total 10
teachers/classes,
including three
teachers from the two
schools.
10 classes in ten
schools were briefly
observed.
From the three
districts (See Table
3.1)
Including the two
schools below
Planned, detailed,
‗full cycle‘ lesson
observations
Four teachers/classes,
from the two
‗detailed observation‘
schools.
4 classes from the
two ‗detailed
observation‘ schools
were observed in
detail.
SDN Indonesiana 2
and SDN Soasio 2,
both from the sub-
district of Tidore
163
A total of 14 classes in the 10 sample schools was observed briefly. This included two
types of observations: (1) planned, detailed, ‗full cycle‘ observations, and (2) unplanned
and unstructured observations. Each of these is described below.
Planned, detailed, ‗full cycle‘ observations: Detailed lesson observations followed a full
observation cycle, consisting of (1) pre-lesson interview, (2) observation during lesson,
and (3) post-lesson interviews. Lessons were recorded on a digital sound recorder and
photographs were taken. Field notes also were kept. These observations were supported
by additional data obtained from various sources including teachers‘ planning documents,
such as lesson plans, and samples of children‘s work. In all cases the observations were
supported by other contextual data, ranging from general observations of the school and
sometimes interviews with other informants associated with the school, such as the
school principal or other teachers. In this way, rich data were collected.
Four classes in two schools were observed in detail. These two schools were located in
the same sub-district of Tidore. The lesson observations were conducted to gather data on
what teachers do. A pre-observation discussion was held prior to the observation and
lasted for approximately 20 minutes. The main purpose was to clarify issues related to the
nature of observation and to agree on ways to minimize any disruption that may be
caused by the presence of the researcher in the classroom. Issues that may have caused
teachers to be uneasy about the observation were raised in the discussion and ways to
minimize these were agreed upon by both the teacher and the researcher. The lesson
observation pro-forma is attached (Appendix 2).
164
Unplanned and unstructured observations: These impromptu and unstructured
observations consisted of mainly sitting in the classroom to observe briefly lessons in
progress. Brief field notes were taken and sometimes photographs. Sometimes
unstructured interviews were also conducted with teachers or others associated with the
school.
Observations of meetings and training activities: In addition to the classroom and general
school observations, observations were conducted of training activities in school cluster
teacher working groups, and of meetings of school principals. Each of these is described
below.
Table 3.5: Observations of meetings and training activities
Data Sources &
Instruments
Research
Respondents /
Sources
Sampling Notes Geographical Notes
School principal
meetings
Two meetings, one
with principals, and
one with principals
supervisors and a
local sub-district
official.
Meetings that took
place during the
field visit were
observed.
Tidore
School cluster in-
service training
activities
Two cluster events
were observed.
Events that took
place during the
field visit were
observed.
The combined gugus,
in Tidore, and Gugus
1, North Tidore
Observations of cluster-based training activities took place in Tidore and North Tidore.
The activities were recorded on a digital sound recorder; photographs and field note notes
165
were taken. Observations of two formal meetings also were conducted. As with the
detailed lesson observations, prior to these observations the researcher met with the
principals and key participants and explained the aim of observation: to gather data on
professional development and leadership practices in relation to the implementation of
active learning and the new curriculum. The main issues to investigate were how training
was conducted, how power in the school and local education system was exercised,
whether power was concentrated or shared, and how decisions were made. Informal
discussions with principals and teachers also took place in many of the schools visited.
Interviews
Interviews were conducted at all levels in the system, and included (1) unstructured
(exploratory, open-ended) interviews which were recorded and subsequently transcribed,
and (2) structured interviews, for which responses were noted on an interview schedule.
Both were important in the gathering of data.
Table 3.6: Interviews
Data Sources &
Instruments
Research
Respondents /
Sources
Sampling Notes Geographical Notes
Unstructured
interviews of
bureaucrats,
education
administrators, and
school supervisors
and principals
Total of 4
respondents: one
national bureaucrat
and three education
staff members from
the Ministry of
National Education
Subjects were
selected on the basis
of their positions in
the bureaucracy and
accessibility
(willingness to
participate)
Jakarta
One respondent: the
Head of Basic
Education and
As above Ternate
166
Teaching in the
Provincial Education
Office in charge of
basic education
Total of 3
respondents: One
senior official and
two junior staff
members from the
province-level teacher
training centre, LPMP
As above Tidore Kepulauan
Total of 4
respondents::
The Head of one
District Education
Office and three local
education
administrators from
the same districts
As above Tidore Kepulauan
Unstructured
(exploratory, open-
ended) interviews of
school supervisors
Total of 2
respondents: both
school supervisors
Supervisors
responsible for
schools in Gugus 2
Tidore sub-district
Unstructured
(exploratory, open-
ended) interviews of
principals
Total of 2
respondents: one
principal, who was
interviewed twice and
another four times
The Principals of
two detailed
observation schools
of SD Soasio 2 and
Indonesiana 2
Tidore
Unstructured
(exploratory, open-
ended) interviews
with teachers –
recorded
Total of 10
respondents: Ten
teachers from the two
detailed observation
schools were
interviewed once
each, four were
interviewed more than
once, some were
queried on their
lessons. Two teachers
who led cluster
Teachers of the two
detailed observation
schools of SD
Soasio 2 and
Indonesiana 2
All of these teachers
come from the same
sub-district in
Tidore, but different
school clusters.
167
training sessions were
also interviewed on
their role as trainers.
Structured
interviews of
teachers - field notes
and interview
schedule. These
interviews were
conducted in groups.
Total of 47
respondents: 45
teachers and 2
principals (including
the 10 teachers above,
who took part in
exporatory
interviews)
Teachers of Tidore
from the combined
gugus and schools in
Tidore
All of these teachers
come from the same
sub-district in
Tidore, but different
school clusters.
Informal and group
discussions
An additional 40
persons took part in
group discussions.
Teachers, principals,
supervisors and local
officials.
In all districts
TOTAL Total of 103
respondents: 26
interviewed
individually and 77
interviewed in groups.
Interviews with teachers and principals also were conducted in schools, offices and
community settings. Interviews with personnel from various agencies and education
offices were conducted at national, province and district levels. The aim of these
interviews was to gain a system-level perspective on the policy development and
implementation process, and to help explain the findings from data gathered at the class
and school levels. A total of 103 people were interviewed, 26 of whom were interviewed
individually and 77 in groups. The interviews lasted for a range of different periods of
time. Some open-ended exploratory interviews lasted up to three hours, while some
interviews were as short as 30 minutes.
168
In addition to the formal data collection, many unstructured and informal interviews and
discussions took place during the field study period. Some were lengthy and discursive,
lasting up to three hours in one case. Others were brief discussions during school visits or
at other times or places, such as in a car. In most cases field notes were kept to record key
points.
169
Data analysis
During the analysis of data, I was supported by two research assistants, one who did
much clerical tasks involved in organization of data including some interviews
transcription, collating photos, and the use of NVivo software in coding, while the other
one, who speaks both Indonesian and English, assisted with some interview coding and
translation of interview transcripts. On the question of translation, the researcher was
registered with the National Australian Accreditation for Translation and Interpreting
(NAATI) body, and did most of the translation of data herself. The two research
assistants had no prior experience in conducting formal research. The researcher
provided basic training to the assistants and assessed their capabilities. In addition to the
research training that they gained, I paid these research assistants for their help and
effort. It is important to declare these facts from a research ethics perspective. Research
is a collaborative and collective process.
To achieve a high quality data analysis, the approach in this study draws significantly
on Yin (2003) as the main reference, while recognizing others who have proposed
different strategies such as Miles and Huberman (1994), Merriam (1997) and Stake
(1995). Yin (1989, 2003) is cited frequently as a reference in qualitative research using
case study.
Data analysis normally consists of examining, categorizing, tabulating, testing or
otherwise recombining both quantitative and qualitative evidence to address the initial
questions of a study. To ensure the quality of the analysis, three principles underlying
170
good social science research are considered: (1) attend to all the evidence, (2) display and
present the evidence separate from any interpretation, and (3) show adequate concern for
exploring alternative interpretations (Yin, 2003).
Data from a variety of sources, such as policy documents, questionnaire, interviews, and
classroom observation were analysed by using the following techniques: (1) content
analysis was used for documents; (2) basic descriptive statistics was used for the
quantitative aspects of the questionnaire, (3) for interview transcripts and the more open
ended aspects of the questionairre, a modified grounded theory approach was used to
look for emerging themes and issues; (4) the computer application, NVivo was used for
coding a subset of data, and to help identify emerging themes, while the bulk of the data
were subsequently coded manually, further developing the themes and issues, and (5) a
descriptive approach was used for the observation data that also identified emerging
categories. See Appendices 10 and 11 for examples of coded interview and lesson
observation transcripts. In addition, a framework proposed by Cuban (1984) was adapted
for the analysis of classroom observation data. This framework categorized observations
of the pattern of teaching into classroom management, group work, classroom talk and
atmosphere, student movement, and activities. Teacher questions were analysed using
categories described by Morgan and Saxton (1994).
The conceptual framework discussed in the previous chapter provided three broad
perspectives or ‗lenses‘ through which to view the data: the technical perspective, the
political perspective and the cultural perspective. This framework guided the
171
categorization of themes which emerged from the data. However, the real value of this
conceptual framework became more evident in the deeper levels of analysis, which is
reported in Chapter Five. The importance of applying these three perspectives, as
discussed in the previous chapter, was that it enabled the analysis to explore responses
which go beyond the more common technical focus of the research questions.
Typically, the case study participants were not familiar with the socio-historical and
political context of curriculum changes or the critical role of international development
agencies in advocating progressive pedagogical principles of active learning in Indonesia.
It was not possible to deal with these issues adequately within the course of the interview
or during observations. Teachers and local education administrators, like most people, are
largely unaware of the uniqueness of the cultural environment in which they live and
work on a day-to-day basis. This is also true of the wider political environment. It is not
until one steps outside of one‘s cultural milieu that this awareness emerges. The first-
level analysis which identified emergent themes from the data is thus unable to identify
these deeper perspectives. When asked directly about the reasons for failure of
implementation, for example, practitioners often cited lack of money or other resources.
Another problem is that some of the data can be categorized into more than one of these
broad perspectives. For example, is the resistance of a school supervisor to the
implementation of an active learning approach in a school, and the subsequent
abandonment of that implementation (as described in Chapter Five), a cultural, political
or technical problem? Depending on which perspective is taken, it could be all three. But
it is unlikely that the informants will identify it as a cultural phenomenon.
172
For this reason the theoretical perspective inherent in the conceptual framework is used to
help analyse the data, to make sense of the case, and to answer the research questions, in
the final stage of data analysis and interpretation.
Validity, trustworthiness, and triangulation
It is sometimes argued that ‗trustworthiness‘ is a more appropriate word to use
than ‗validity‘ in the context of critical research (Kincheloe & McLaren, 2000).
One criterion for critical trustworthiness involves the credibility of portrayals of
constructed realities. Regardless of the care and thought taken, the opportunity to
undertake a perfectly complete study is unachievable (Gardner, 2006); it is never
possible to study the entire case or to determine ‗ultimate truth‘ (Lincoln & Guba,
2000). Ambiguity is unavoidable (Fontana & Frey, 2000). Therefore ensuring the
highest possible degree of trustworthiness is crucial, in part, as a prerequisite for
ascribing credibility (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). It could be fairly claimed that the
trustworthiness and credibility of the data gathered in this study were strengthened
by use of multiple sources of data which enabled triangulation through
corroborating evidence (Denzin & Lincoln, 2000; Stake, 1995; Yin, 1994).
Stake (2000) argues that for qualitative casework, the procedure for reducing the
likelihood of misinterpretation is through triangulation. Methodological
triangulation was carried out by the use of survey, interview, observation, and to a
significant extent, document analysis. Interviews were taped whilst interview notes
173
were also taken, and in most cases reflections were recorded after the interview.
These different methods of recording the data were particularly helpful when the
researcher returned to the interview data after an absence and so served to increase
the validity of interpretations.
The fact that the approach taken to this study was participative and collaborative also
increases the validity of interpretations and conclusions. In a more traditional positivist
research paradigm, it might be thought that the researcher‘s familiarity with the case, and
the open and collaborative role taken with participants within the case, could impact
negatively on validity. However, for all the reasons outlined above, this familiarity and
the open-collaborative approach taken significantly enhanced validity in this study.
A case study can neither refute nor prove any general proposition or theory, but it can
perhaps serve to modify some strong or covert beliefs and purported universal ‗truths‘
that frequently emerge in social science analysis. The choice of the qualitative and
quantitative surveys methods was deliberate and political in that the research was
intended to solicit people‘s stories and narratives about their daily practices.
The depth and richness of the findings of qualitative methods (compared to the breadth
of data produced by quantitative approaches) do not lend themselves to generalizable
findings, nor do they require a statistically representative sample (Brannen, 1992;
Bryman, 1992; Hammersley, 1992, 1993). The relatively small number of interviews in
this qualitative study could not provide an adequate basis for inferential statistics. The
inferences that can be drawn from qualitative data are termed ‗common sense‘ or logical
174
rather than statistical (Cook & Crang, 1995; Mitchell, 1983). Qualitative approaches do
not aim to produce ‗laws‘ or generalizations in the same way as quantitative methods.
Current thinking on generalizability sees it as a concept which is at odds with qualitative
approaches, and relies on the vitality of thick descriptions. A multi-perspectival
approach holds that the more theories and methods a researcher has at his/her disposal,
the more tasks one can perform and the more specific objects and themes one can
address. The more perspectives that one brings to bear on a phenomenon, the better
one‘s potential grasp or understanding of it could be. This means one should have a
basket of techniques and not rely on one method or theory.
The way in which some qualitative studies make use of a ‗basket of techniques‘ to fill
the gaps in data collection was part of the approach adopted in the current study. The use
of multiple techniques as earlier described to collect data was important. The research
was concerned with things that happen both inside and outside the classrooms. In
particular, the research was concerned with those things that happened outside the
classrooms which have a bearing on what happens inside the classroom. In other words,
I was looking at how educational policy issues have shaped the idea of teachers‘
practices when interacting with children.
Limitations of the study
The main limitations of the study were resource related. Specifically, the researcher was
constrained by limited finance and limited time. As a part-time doctoral student I was
unable to focus fully on the research or commit substantial funds to the study.
175
This meant that I was unable to conduct a follow-up site visit to study the effects of
policy implementation over a longer period of time. However, I was able to meet with a
key informant and I could follow events at a distance, using remote communications
including email and telephone. Furthermore, I was able to follow the development of
policy at the national level.
Another result of these limitations is that the period between data collection and
submission of the final thesis was substantial (seven years). During this period, as noted
in Chapter One, a new curriculum was introduced (the 2013 Curriculum). However, the
policy on active learning remains in place – based on the national standards, which form
the basis for the previous 2006 ‗school-based‘ curriculum. Active learning is embedded
in the new curriculum. The challenges in implementation identified in this case study
remain, as evidenced in frequent media coverage of the implementation of the 2013
Curriculum (Kompas, 2014; Setiawan, 2014).
Conclusion
In this chapter, the methodological approach to this study was explained, together with
the theoretical basis for that approach. The chapter then described the broad approach and
the reasons for adopting a mainly qualitative research approach for this study. The
reasons for a case study approach were then discussed along with the type of case study
methodology adopted. This was followed by a consideration of ethics and entry to the
field, an explanation of the case selection and sampling within the case, a description of
176
data sources, data collection techniques, data analysis and, finally, questions of validity,
trustworthiness and triangulation.
The following chapter describes the findings of the case study, focussing on the ways in
which the national policy on active learning was interpreted in schools in North Maluku,
the process of policy implementation through cluster-based teacher professional
development and the factors which hindered implementation.
177
Chapter 4: Results
178
Introduction
This chapter presents the results of the study. The presentation is structured in the order
of the two research questions asked: (1) How do teachers translate active learning
methodology in the classroom? (2) What factors impede the implementation of active
learning?
As explained in the previous chapter, the data were collected from primary schools in the
province of North Maluku. Observations and discussions with school teachers, school
principals, and school inspectors/supervisors were conducted. Interviews were also
conducted with bureaucrats at sub-district, district, province and national policy levels. A
wide range of documents was reviewed, including the national policy documents referred
to in the previous chapter, newspaper clippings, minutes of meetings and organizational
notes from school clusters, school planning documents, teacher lesson plans and
secondary sources such as studies by government agencies and a local principal.
Triangulation was achieved through multiple-site interviews including with bureaucrats
from the neighbouring districts of South and West Halmahera and through the use of a
range of techniques for data collection. The use of a variety of techniques including
policy document analysis, questionnaire, interviews, and observation also supports
triangulation and enables a comprehensive view of the policy implementation.
The use of narrative and a grounded theory approach to identify themes and issues is
central to the analysis. As described in the previous chapter, this analysis began with the
179
data collection phase, themes were identified, and NVivo computer software was used to
help manage some of the interview data.
The findings of the case study are presented from the main data sources: observations of
classrooms and teacher training, survey and interviews. Findings from document analysis
are presented in the context of findings from the main data sources, particularly where
they triangulate these findings. The first section presents findings from observations of
schools and classrooms. This provides the main basis for answering Question One.
Following this, a case study of teacher in-service training and the the school cluster
system is presented. This is followed by a presentation of findings from a survey and
interviews with teachers and education administrators. These sections provide the basis
for answering Question Two. In the final section, conclusions are then drawn in response
to the two research questions: How do teachers translate active learning methodology in
their classes? What factors impede the implementation of active learning? Deeper
analysis of the findings from a theoretical perspective is provided in Chapter Five.
Summary of results
Research Question One
The question reads: How do teachers translate active learning methodology in the
classroom? Although the realities are different in each case, teachers in the primary
schools studied in North Maluku are not yet effectively implementing an active learning
methodology in their classrooms. In general, teachers neither understood the theoretical
nor the practical aspects of active learning, commonly referred to in Indonesia as
180
PAKEM. Although some principles of active learning were beginning to be incorporated
in the lessons, in all classrooms observed, teaching was traditional, didactic and teacher-
centered.
Research Question Two
The question reads: What factors impede the implementation of active learning? Many
factors were identified as impeding the implementation of active learning. These are
grouped below into broad themes which emerged from the data: (1) teacher training
factors, (2) school supervision, (3) teacher factors, (4) student factors, and (5) community
factors. The following figure illustrates how these themes emerged from the data.
181
Figure 4.1: Emergent Themes
182
Each of the themes in the above figure are elaborated in the next sections, which describe
the results of analysis from various data sources.
School and classroom observations
School observations
More similarities than differences: Using Alexander‘s (2000) term ‗space and time
organization‘, in all of the ten schools that were visited, which included the two schools
sampled for detailed observation, Sekolah Jaya and Sekolah Merdeka (pseudonyms for
the two sampled schools), the similarities in the way the school buildings look and
function is the dominant theme. This physical dimension, Alexander further argues,
represents ―...structures which are not merely institutional means to educational ends:
they also speak for themselves‖ (Alexander, 2000, p. 176).
Figure 4.2: SD Inpres Wayamiga, Bacan Figure 4.3: MIS Acango, Jailolo
183
The physical dimension of the schools provides the context for learning and can either
support of hinder the implementation of active learning. With this in mind, a brief
discussion of the school‘s layout and some impacts of this on the behaviour of teachers
and students follows. With the exception of Sekolah Jaya, which is a two-story building,
all other buildings of these ten schools observed were one-story buildings and looked
similar in the way that the classrooms, veranda and courtyard were arranged. All
consisted of six classrooms. None had any additional building such as a canteen or
gymnasium. Each of the schools had one dedicated room for use by teachers and
principals. Some were partitioned to distinguish the teachers‘ from principal‘s office. In
all schools, the school yard was used as both a playground and assembly point for all
children and teachers. Other similarities include the following:
Bare classrooms: Classrooms looked bare, with rows of desks facing the blackboard. This
was observed in 12 out of 14 classes observed in the ten schools. The exception was two
of the four classes in which detailed lesson observations were conducted. These had a
different classroom arrangement. In these lessons, children were seated in small groups of
three to four children. However interviews with the teachers suggested these
arrangements were temporary. In the science lesson observed, children worked outside
the classroom observing various plants in the school yard for 20 minutes out of a 90
minute lesson period.
184
Figure 4.4: Classroom arrangement plan (1)
Figure 4.5: Class arrangement plan (2)
Figure 4.6: Typical classroom arrangement Figure 4.7: Class arrangement plan (3)
Very little visual material was used in any of these schools. There was no display of
children work. This was observed in all 14 classes observed in the ten schools. What was
displayed on the walls included: (1) commercially produced teaching aid pictures (in five
out of 14 classes – see photos below), (2) official portraits of the current President and
Vice President (in seven out of 14 classes), (3) quotations and slogans including
‗PAKEM‘ as a slogan, (4) framed pictures of national heroes, and (5) a drawing to
illustrate the seating arrangements (in eight out of 14 classes – see photos above).
185
Figure 4.8: ‘Tertib di sekolah’ means ‘Discipline at school’
Figure 4.9: Commercially produced teaching aids
Figure 4.10: Classroom wall display
Figure 4.11: Classroom wall display
186
Figure 4.12: Whiteboard and formal portraits of President and Vice-President
Figure 4.13: Commercially produced wall charts
Formalities in class ritual: In all of the 14 schools observed, morning assembly was
routinely conducted in the form of students standing in line in the school yard where daily
housekeeping matters were announced. The exceptions were Mondays and days of
national celebration; flag-raising ceremonies normally take a minimum of twenty minutes
on Mondays and thirty minutes for special celebrations, such as Independence Day.
Compared to schools in systems such as the Australian system, where assembly is often
the time for sharing children‘s work; in all of these schools it was a time for children to
listen to teachers or principals making announcements. One such assembly observed was
used for the teacher to sort out uniforms for children to wear in the Independence Day
celebration, at which various competitions including marching in groups were to be held.
This teacher reminded the children to tell their parents that they had to pay for the
uniforms, as illustrated below:
….. August 16, 2007. And tomorrow we are going to hold an [Independence Day] flag
raising ceremony for August 17. Pay attention, please! Grade One, please listen to me!
All children from Grades One to Six will attend tomorrow, not Grade One to Three
187
because they are not invited; just Grade Four to Six for the flag raising ceremony in the
Opentet Field, which will begin at eight. Hats on, white shirts and red pants or skirts must
be worn. It means you wear your hat, your white shirt and red pants or skirts, OK … for
Grade Four to Six! And the second thing I would like you to do is to those who have not
paid up, please do so to Ibu Usdadjah Umi. You can also pay in installments of, say, ten
thousand, twenty thousand rupiah, for the shirt. To those who have not yet taken their
shirt, go to Ustajah Umi and tell her. All of you must wear this sport shirt because every
Friday and Saturday we all wear a sport shirt. Especially when we do sport we have to
wear a sport shirt. (T42F)
…..16 Agustus 2007. Jadi besok kita akan mengadakan upacara 17 Agustus. Jadi
perhatikan, kelas 1, dengar kemari dulu. Mulai dari kelas 1 sampai kelas 6, besok kita,
tidak termasuk juga kelas 1,2,3, itu tidak di undang. Hanya kelas 4,5,6, untuk upacara 17
Agustus di lapangan Opentet, besok jam 8. Kelas 4,5,6, pakaian seragam lengkap. Topi,
kemeja putih dengan rok merah. Berarti pakai topi, celana merah, baju putih, itu
seragam, besok jam 8.….. Itu untuk kelas 4,5,6. Dan yang kedua, Ibu sampaikan bagi
yang belum lunas uang baju kaos-nya itu silahkan hubungi Ibu Ustadjah Umi. Biar bayar
10 ribu, 20 ribu, karena baju kaos. …Yang belum ambil baju kaos, itu masih ada di
dalam, daftar di ibu Ustadjah Umi, ambil semua. Semua di haruskan memakai kaos
olahraga, karena setiap hari jumat, sabtu kita memakai baju kaos olahraga. Apalagi
kalau kita olahraga, mesti pakai pakaiana kaos olahraga. (T42F)
188
Figure 4.14: Monday Morning Flag Raising Ceremony
Figure 4.15: Practicing for Independence Day Ceremony
Figure 4.16: Preparing for Independence Day Figure 4.17: Marching for Independence Day Ceremony
Other rituals observed included the use of Islamic prayer and greetings before lessons, as
illustrated below. In two of the classes where a detailed lesson observation was made the
teachers began the lesson by reciting aloud Qur‘anic verses to which children either
responded in unison, as was the case in the science lesson, or followed suit in unison, as
with the case in mathematics lesson. Although, the exact type of the verse may vary, in
the two morning classes observed, the following verses below were used:
Peace be upon you (T42F)
189
As-salamu alaykum Warrahmatullahiwabarakatuh (T42F)
I am sincere that Allah is my God, and Islam as my religion, and the Prophet Muhammad
is a prophet and messenger of God. O Allah, grant me knowledge, and give me grace to
understand the knowledge. (T45F)
Rodlittu billahirobba, wabi islamidina, wabimuhammadin nabiyyaw warasululla, robbi
zidnii ilmaa warzuqnii fahmaa. (T45F)
Figure 4.18: Classroom scene Figure 4.19: Awards on display
Time organization: The following tables illustrate the structure of time in Indonesian
primary schools, based on the four different national curricula: the 1994 curriculum,
which was still relevant at the time of the study in Maluku, the 2004 KBK curriculum and
2006 KTSP curriculum, which were in the process of being implemented – despite being
little understood as illustrated in the findings below. Finally, the 2013 curriculum,
currently being trialled in Indonesia at the time of writing.
190
Table 4.1: SD/MI Early Grades (1-2) (Number of 35 minute lessons per week)
No Subject 1994 2004
(KBK)
2006
(KTSP)
2013
1 Religious education 2
Thematic Thematic
4
2 Civics and National Ideology
(Pancasila) 2 5 - 6
3 Mathematics 10 5 - 6
4 Bahasa Indonesia
101 82 5 Science
6 Social Studies
8 Art, Crafts, Culture (Kerajinan
Tangan, Kesenian, Seni Budaya,
Prakarya)
2
4
9 Health and Physical Education 2
4
10 Local content 2
Total number of lessons per week 30 27 26 - 27 30 - 32
Approx. total hours per day (6
days per week)
3 hr 2 ½ hr 2 ½ hr 3 hr
1 Total for three subjects
2 Total for three subjects
191
Table 4.2: SD/MI Upper Grades (3-6) (Number of 35 minute lessons per week)
No Subject 1994 2004
(KBK)
2006
(KTSP)
2013
1 Religious education 2 3 3 4
2 Civics and National Ideology
(Pancasila) 2 - 2 6
4 Mathematics 8 5 5 6
3 Bahasa Indonesia 8 5 5
103
5 Science 6 4 4
6 Social Studies 5 4 3
8 Art, Crafts, Culture (Kerajinan
Tanggan, Kesenian, Seni Budaya,
Prakarya)
2 4 4 6
9 Health and Physical Education 2 4 4
44 10 Local content 5 - 7 - 2
11 Self development - 2 2
Total number of lessons per week 40 - 42 31 28 - 32 36
Approx. total hours per day (6
days per week)
4 hr 3 hr 3 hr 3 ½ hr
Note: 1994: Grade 3 has more Indonesian and Math and less IPA, IPS. 2006: Grade 3 is thematic.
2013: Three options are under consideration. These include splitting Science and Social Studies
in Years 4-6 and reducing time on Religion and Arts-Crafts.
3 Total for three subjects
4 Total for three subjects
192
The primary schools observed started classes at 7.30 in the morning, six days a week.
Class times varied, but analysis of school curriculum documents, showed that children in
early grades attended school for 17 ½ hours a week (around 3 hours per day), finishing at
around 10.30 in the morning. Children in upper grades attended school for 20 hours a
week (around 3 ½ hours per day, usually staying until around 11.00 or 12.00 (depending
which day). The school week lasted six days and the length of the school year was 37
weeks. Most of the children‘s time at school was confined in the classroom. Under the
new curricula (KBK and KTSP) this time allocation dropped from 3 to 2 ½ hours for
early grades and from 4 to 3 ½ hours for upper grades. This is significantly less than in
many other countries. In Australia, for example, primary school children spend around
five hours per day in class. However, the school year is longer in Indonesia than that in
many countries. While the Australia school year is around 190 days (depending on when
public holidays fall), the Indonesian school year is around 220 days (based on a six-day
week). Based on these figures, Indonesian children in upper primary grades spend
approximately 660 hours per year in class compared with Australian children who spend
approximately 950 hours. The difference is more marked for early grades.
The amount of time children spend on task in learning activities is another question. The
non-learning time spent in classes observed (see below in this chapter) was substantial.
Non-learning tasks included waiting for the teacher, rituals and ceremonies. In each of the
schools observed, teachers wrote up daily schedules and some of them pinned the
schedule on the wall. Another schedule observed in all of these schools was the grouping
of children in the class into groups of six to do duties, mainly sweeping and keeping the
193
school and classroom clean and tidy. Every child belonged to a group and she or he
would have a turn to do such a duty each day.
Figure 4.20: Cleaning duty
Figure 4.21: Cleaning duty
Figure 4.22: Waiting for the teacher Figure 4.23: Morning assembly (Upacara)
The curriculum document for one of the sampled schools stated that the number of days
for 2007 was 246 and 223 for the following year of 2008 (Sekolah Dasar Negeri 2 Soasio,
2007). The decision on 223 days was made in a cluster meeting and this number was
shared by all the four schools belonging to this cluster. This was not the case with the
first figure: the number of 246 days was decided by the school. This decision was a form
of school-autonomy evident in one of the schools observed and described in greater detail
194
later. Some other relevant decisions made in the cluster and shared with all the four
members of the schools included the scope of the curriculum, which referred to the
subject matter taught, local content, self development, habituating activites, time
organization for learning activities, criteria of mastery and grade transfer and graduation
(Hasan, 2009).
Lesson observations
Four lessons were observed in detail. A full transcription was made for three of these
lessons. Unfortunately, one tape was corrupted which made the transcription impossible.
In conjunction with the digital-recording, field notes were made for all the four lessons.
These lesson observations took place in two sampled schools in Tidore. The observations
covered the full ‗lesson cycle‘ and included a pre-observation meeting with the teacher,
analysis of the teacher‘s lesson plan, observation of the lesson, recording and subsequent
coding and analysis of the lesson and post-observation interview with the teacher. A
summary of the coding for the remaining three lessons is illustrated in the three graphs
below: Teacher 1 (T42F), Teacher 2 (T45F), and Teacher 3 (T47F).
The transcripts were analysed in two ways: (1) interaction analysis and (2) analysis of
teacher questioning. Each of these is described below.
In the interaction analysis of the three observations, an interaction is defined as a
complete initiation-response feedback/follow-up (IRF) or initiation-response (IR)
exchange (Alexander, 2000). Interactions varied, and were categorized as (1) teacher to
195
the whole class, (2) teacher with individual student, and (3) teacher with groups or vice-
versa, in the context of explaining, monitoring or attending to students‘ needs.
Other than focusing on interaction, the other dimensions of the observation included: (1)
classroom arrangement, (2) class management, and (3) the type of activities in the
lessons. Classroom arrangement and class management refer to the physical layout of the
classroom, which suggests whether the class is managed as unitary or multiple groups.
Following Alexander‘s (2000) classification, where the class was treated primarily as one
and a whole it was regarded as unitary. This view is reflected in the classroom activity:
the same activity is undertaken for the whole class. When students were grouped in
several sub-groups, or treated predominately as individuals, rather than as a single class
unit, the class was regarded as multiple. In this case several activities may be pursued at
any one time or students may work in small groups or individually on a common task.
The following features were common to all the four lessons observed: (1) teachers played
a dominant role in the learning process, (2) the frequency of teacher initiation in
classroom exchange was always much higher than student initiation, (3) questions asked
were mainly closed, requiring recall, and the response was mainly a single word, (4)
teachers‘ voice was consistently loud, intonation rising when asking questions, most often
with the last word drawn out, and the response by students was a loud chant, and (5) in all
of the lessons the mode was transmission.
196
This is illustrated in Figure 4.24, below, which summarizes the analysis of classroom
interaction in the three detailed class observations for which transcripts were obtained, by
coding the utterances as either teacher initiated, student initiated, teacher responses (to
student initiated interactions) or student responses (to teacher initiated interactions). The
colours in the figure represent the classrooms of three different teachers observed.
Figure 4.24: Class Interaction (Frequency)
In the figure above, the data for Teacher 2 (T45F) stand out. The number of interactions
is far greater than for the other two classes observed. The reason is that the lesson was a
different length. While Teacher 2‘s lesson class consisted of three 35-minute lessons
combined, and it started and finished on time, the other two classes observed consisted of
197
two 35-minutes lessons each and finished early. This resulted in a larger number of
utterances in Classroom 2. There was more talk recorded in this classroom (Teacher
T45F) than in the other two classes. However, while the general pattern was the same for
all, the analysis of interactions in this lesson also reveals that this teacher‘s class was
more teacher-centred than the other two.
The pattern of interaction is illustrated in Figure 4.25, below, which shows each different
type of interaction as a percentage of the total for the three classes.
Figure 4.25: Class Interaction (Percentage)
Based on the analysis of classroom interaction together with the more qualitative field
notes, the following key themes emerged from the classroom observations: (1) the
dominant role of teachers in the learning process, (2) the amount of procedural interaction
198
is greater than the amount of substantial engagement, and (3) lesson planning is
formulaic. Each of these is explained below.
The dominant role of teachers in the learning process: As can be seen in the pie graph, 46
per cent of interaction in these classes was teacher-initiated and 49 per cent consisted of
students responding. A total of 85 per cent of the interactions thus consisted of teachers
asking questions and children responding. In other words, the learning is teacher-centred
and the activities of students are centred on answering questions or responding to the
direction given by teachers. Only 9 per cent of interactions were student initiated. These
were all student requests to the teachers to help solve problems or clarify the task, so even
these could be considered as a ‗once-removed‘ teacher-directed response.
Teachers‘ voices were loud at all times during lessons. This was observed not only in
these three lessons reported in the graph, but in the other detailed observation and in all
the five brief class observations in other schools as well. In two Grade One classes
observed, both mathematics lessons, the teachers relied on using the blackboard fixed in
front of the class for explaining concepts and giving students practices and drills. What
was surprising was the frequency of students‘ responses in both of these classes, which
was high, and the use of the abstract concepts of addition and subtraction at the same
time. These children had only attended school for one month when the observation was
made and were facing the task of having to learn these abstract concepts, at the same time
learning to read and write.
199
When the teachers gave them a problem to solve, it was written on the blackboard in both
cases. This was surprising in two ways. First, these two teachers used no visual or
concrete aids, yet the children demonstrated a high level of engagement. This was evident
in the children‘s enthusiasm when at different times in the two lessons both teachers
asked them questions about their morning bath, breakfast, meals and the like as practical
examples of addition and subtraction. The stories of these family routines were used to
illustrate their mathematics lessons that morning. Teacher 2 engaged children physically
in the middle of the lesson by getting them to stand up and do some exercise as an
‗energiser‘. Children used their own notebooks to copy material, and to complete the
problem-solving exercises from the teachers who wrote them on the board. With two
exceptions, in all classes observed, teachers and students relied on blackboards and
notebooks for their learning. This included the five brief class observations. In two of the
four detailed class observations, the teachers provided copied material from a teacher-
developed worksheet called Lembar Kerja Siswa (LKS).
These classes were taught as a whole, using a direct teaching method. Class time was
taken mostly by teachers explaining concepts and giving instructions, and students
completing exercises developed by teachers. Apart from the class observed where the
teacher took students outside the classroom to observe plants in the schools garden, a
direct, didactic, teaching method was evident in all class observations, both brief and
detailed.
200
There was also evidence of an emerging attempt to introduce active learning methods. In
one of the four classes observed, the teacher took children out of the classroom to the
school yard, asked children to observe various plants, put children in small groups and
gave them the opportunity to work in their groups. In addition to this demonstration,
another class was also observed to employ student grouping and the use of teacher-
developed student work-sheets as a basis for assessment. In three out of the four classes,
teachers used songs in their lesson as ice breakers and energizers. Although this kind of
activity is whole-class and teacher-directed, it nonetheless represents an attempt by
teachers to make the classroom experience more active and enjoyable for children,
following the principles of PAKEM as commonly understood.
Figure 4.26: Contextual learning outdoors Figure 4.27: Energizer
The amount of procedural interaction is greater than the amount of substantial
engagement: Another way of determining the degree to which teachers adopted active
learning approaches, was to assess the level of student engagement. In other words, were
the children actively engaged in their learning? The level of engagement of students was
201
assessed by looking at the following features of lessons: (1) teaching strategies, (2) how
problems were presented and solved, (3) opportunities to talk, and (4) resources used
during the lesson. Two types of engagement were observed: procedural engagement,
when teachers asked them something directly and explicitly, and substantial engagement,
when students initiating something, for example making comments, asking questions, or
proposing a solution to a problem.
In all of the classes, children‘s responses were short, partly due to the closed questions
the teachers asked. In almost every case, teachers asked expository questions and missed
the opportunity for a more exploratory type of question to be asked. Replacing the closed,
espository questions with exploratory questions would have offered greater potential for
children to engage with the learning. In all of the observed instructional episodes, the
teachers initiated nearly all the questions and did not ‗pick up‘ or ‗follow up‘ on any
responses made by learners, apart from repeating the same question for a wrong answer
given by the learner. Thus, all questions were used to clarify understanding, either of
procedural matters or of basic facts being taught. In other words, the children were
merely recalling what had been explained. Also noteworthy, was the tendency of the
teacher to answer the question herself rather than directing the question to the students,
and the use of a discouraging response to a students‘ question, as was the case in the
science lesson taught by Teacher 1. See the extract from the transcript below for this
eposide:
Teacher Utterance no. 155T. [The teacher repeated what she said earlier to summarise the
content of the lesson.] …. Plants propagate by sexual and asexual [means]. ‗Asexual‘
means propagating without seeds, while ‗sexual‘ does use seeds. You have seen examples
202
of both outside in the garden. OK, then to wrap up the lesson, I would like you to know
my expectation for what I gave you today: all of you can get [the point of the lesson] or
maybe there are those who do not understand and want to ask a question. Please do so. Is
there anyone? All of you understand, right? Is there anyone [who wants to ask a
question]?
156SS: [Silence; no students responding]
157T: You all are silent! When you are silent; [there are] two possibilities; first you really
do understand, second you do not understand the question. So; which is it, the first or the
second? You do not understand, do you?
158S: No, I don‘t. [one student was seen responding]
159T: Which part don‘t you understand? You should just ask. Why didn‘t you ask
earlier? See, there it is! You can find it there! All of you know now. Please quickly
complete the task. Hurry up!
160S: [One student was seen whispering and consulting with his classmate, aware that
the teacher was expecting him to hurry up and complete the task at hand. He was seeking
help from his classmate.]
161T: Yes, you understand now, don‘t you? So, you can then work with your group,
write all the answers on the sheet and then copy them in your notebook. Yes your work
must be copied in your book! Have you done it?
155T: .... Perkembangbiakan itu sendiri di bedakan menjadi 2 yaitu
perkembangbiakan secara Vegetatif dan perkembangbiakan secara Generatif.
Secara Vegetatif itu, perkembangan tanpa melalui perkawinan sedangkan
perkembangbiakan Generatif itu, perkembangbiakan melalui perkawinan.
Masing-masing contohnya sudah kamu dapat, kalian sendiri, kamu sudah temui
203
diluar. Jadi mudah-mudahan apa yang ibu berikan hari ini, kamu bisa menerima
atau barangkali ada anak-anak yang belum paham atau mau bertanya silahkan.
Silahkan kalau ada yang belum paham. Ada, semua sudah paham betul, ada
tidak?
156S: (anak-anak diam tidak ada yang menjawab)
157T: Kalau kalian diam saja, itu ada dua kemungkinan, kemungkinan pertama
kamu tahu betul, kemungkinan kedua kamu tidak tahu pertanyaannya. Jadi ini
yang pertama atau yang kedua ini. Kalian tidak tahu ?
158S: Tidak bu (seorang anak menjawab)
159T: Yang mana yang belum tahu itu. Kalau belum tahu tanya. Kenapa tidak
tanya dari awal. Ada, ada, semua sudah tahu,boleh di kerjakan supaya cepat
sedikit.
160S: (seorang siswa berbisik bisik dan berkonsultasi dengan teman sebangku
sadar bahwa dia diminta oleh gurunya agar menyelesaikan pekerjaan dengan
cepat).
161T: Ya, sudah tahu to. Jadi nanti kamu boleh, masing-masing kelompok kamu
sudah tulis itu to. Jadi nanti masing-masing kelompok, jadi nanti kamu salin
kemasing-masing ke dalam buku kamu, hasil kerja kamu itu kamu salin.ya. yang
kamu presentasikan tadi sudah bagus. Sudah belum?
The analysis of instructional discourse thus indicates no more than a procedural
engagement. Most lessons felt lifeless. Teachers and learners went through the motions of
typical traditional schooling in which they asked and answered questions, assigned and
204
carried out class work and homework. The normal classroom discourse observed consists
of recitation: the teachers asks a question in most cases to test recall, and in most cases
learners makes a chorus response. The teacher rarely makes an evaluation of the answer,
apart from repeating the same question when the wrong answer is given or gesturing that
a correct answer has been given by the learners. Teachers then move on to the next
question.
Lesson planning is formulaic: Two formats were used for lesson planning: one based on
the 1994 and one on the 2006 curriculum documents. In both formats, there is a space for
principal to sign. Each format consisted of different components (five for the 2006
format, and seven for 1994). All planning documents were handwritten. Regardless of
grades, each planning is to cover a maximum of three 35 minutes time-slots. Teaching is
conceptualized as a series of activities clustered into three stages of Apersepsi
(stimulating learners‘ interest), Kegiatan Inti (Core Activities) and Penilaian
(evaluation). A variety of teaching and learning aids are noted. The assessment section
recognizes a variety of ways of measuring learners‘ achievement.
The analysis of classroom observations is illustrated in the following tables. Table 5.3,
below, describes the learning process at each stage of the lesson from Teacher 1 (T42F)
comparing what was planned and what actually took place. The lesson was planned and
prepared in five stages: Stage One – Preparation (Pendahuluan, Pre-teaching, Apersepsi),
Stage Two - teaching began (Kegiatan Inti 1), Stage Three – teaching continued with
learners‘ practice (Kegiatan Inti 2), Stage Four – teaching continued, teacher gave
feedback (Kegiatan Inti 3), and Stage Five – Learners showed the teacher their work,
205
completed a test (Penutup, Penilaian). The format used by the first teacher (T42F) is
based on the rule set out in Permendiknas no.41 for the standard process.
The subject for this lesson was science and the topic, plant propagation. The class was
Grade 6 and the Semester 1. The lesson took two 35 minute periods. The aim of the
lesson was to teach children a basic competency: to identify different means of
propagation in plants. The teacher-identified indicator for achieving the aim was the
observation that children could find information and identify different means of
propagation. The teaching methods included: lecture, observation, question and answer,
task assignment, and discussion. Learning resources referred to were a science text book
published by Intan Pariwara and a book titled Aneka Ilmu. The school yard was used as a
resource and flowers as a teaching aid.
The table below illustrates the comparison between what was planned for the learning
process and what actually took place.
206
Table 4.3: Teacher’s Planning and Observed Practice (Teacher 1: Science Lesson)
Stage One - preparation
Pendahuluan
(Pre-teaching, Apersepsi, )
Stage Two-teaching begin
Kegiatan Inti (1)
Stage Three – teaching continue (learners’ practice)
Kegiatan Inti (2)
Stage Four –Teaching continue (teacher give feedback)
Kegiatan Inti (3)
Stage Five – Learners to show case their work, do test/exam
Penutup, Penilaian
Planning document
(KTSP)
To let children get ready, to do roll call, to get learning material ready for use, to ask learners to sing ‘Lihat Kebunku’
Learners to: work in group to complete worksheets, listen to teacher’s explanation, observe plants in the yard and name them and identify ways of propagation
Learners to: conduct observation and discussion in the group
Learners to: present their work based on their observation, make a summary of content
Teachers to give students questions to check their understanding of content, learners to display their work
Observed
Practice
Islamic prayers were recited
to begin the lesson, roll call
was conducted, the teacher
wrote on the board the topic
and purposes of the lesson.
First 30 minutes: in class
teacher talked (explaining
content and task) learners
listened quietly all the time.
Second 30 minutes: in the
school yard, learners
observed various plants and
made note in the worksheet.
One learner from each group
read aloud their findings in
front of the whole class for
comment. In five minutes all
groups had read aloud.
Teacher’s reprimanded
various individual students
when making comment.
Teacher asked learners
questions but no answers
were forthcoming, eventually
teacher gave the answer. No
display was made.
207
The gap between what was intended and what actually occured is marked at every stage
of the lesson. This was an attempt to plan and implement a lesson based on active
learning pedagogy and using the framework of the then-new curriculum (KTSP),
including identifying a basic competency to teach as the aim of the lesson.
Based on the interview with the teacher and the broader context and findings of the case
study, we can say, with some certainty, that the reason for the gap between planning and
implementation was essentially that the teacher did not fully understand or feel confident
in adopting an active learning approach in the classroom. While the theory of the
approach was clear in the planning, the teacher was not competent to actually implement
it, and so reverted to more traditional, didactic approaches for most of the lesson.
In the following Table 4.4, the results of observation of this same science lesson are
presented in terms of the gaps between theory, intention and implementation. Gaps are
identified in the following five areas: classroom management, group work, classroom talk
and atmosphere, student movement, and activities. As mentioned in Chapter Three, this
framework is adapted from Cuban (1984).
208
Table 4.4: Pattern of Teaching (Teacher 1: Science Lesson)
Classroom management Group work Classroom talk and
atmosphere
Student movement Activities
Active
Learning:
Pattern of
Teaching
(adapted from
Cuban, 1984)
Cluster of desk and chairs to
enable students to face one
another
Students’ work display is
attractive and frequently
changed
Class divided into groups
Students engaged in individual
tasks
Students report, debate, role
play, student-led discussion
Students talking in groups or
with individuals
Students are on tasks and in
small groups, doing projects
Students move freely while on
task and work on a variety of
tasks
Planning
document
Not evident in the document
(both as a whole or in parts)
which suggests that issues of
classroom management need
to be considered in the lesson.
Although there was a plan to
use group work, no plan was
made to make learners aware
of the use of grouping or to
elaborate what group work
means etc.
Very little evidence in the
document which suggests the
need for teachers to think
deeply about issues of
classroom talk.
In Apersepsi two questions
were listed:
Have you seen (a picture of) a
human body?
Mention three body parts you
know?
Learners: are divided into
groups, receive worksheet,
listen to teacher’s explanation,
conduct and present the result
of discussion, fill in tables, ask
and answer questions
Teachers give students
questions to check their
understanding; learners display
their work
Observed
Practice
Physically the classroom look
very traditional with rows of
desk all facing the blackboard.
Even when learners were
completing the work sheet
supposedly in group, when
Teacher made no attempt to
help learners be aware of group
work, what it means to them,
what were expected of them in
terms of different roles etc.-
except that the group must
complete the worksheet.
In groups of three/four learners
Teacher did most of the talking
in the form of giving instruction,
explanation, correcting
mistakes, asking short
questions, and expressing
frustration.
All 11 children were seated in
rows where girls and boys did
not mixed. The first 30
minutes children sat in their
seats listening and occasionally
cried out a word or two, to
respond to teacher.
First 30 minutes: in class
teacher talked learners
listened. Second 30: in the
school yard, learners observed
various plants and made a note
on the worksheet. The last
30minutes was used mainly by
teachers to either give
instruction, reprimand,
209
inside the classroom the
teacher made no attempt to
arrange the seating differently.
Learners sat in pairs the same
way as in non-group work
situation.
completed a worksheet, the
same worksheet for all groups.
Learners looked at various
plants including aloe vera,
bougainvillia, avocado, pukul
empat, great, tahi ayam,
bonsai, banana, kamboja
Jepang, cempaka.
Apart from singing together and
reading aloud their work upon
the request of the teacher, all
learners, in particular the more
active ones, used a one or two
word phrase response when
invited.
Teacher’s tone of voice was
threatening and the
atmosphere was tense
throughout the lesson.
30 minutes were spent outdoor
in the school yard where
learners worked in groups,
looking for various plants and
their propagation techniques.
feedback/correction. Five
minutes was used for the class
to listen to reports as read out
by one learner in each group.
No attempt was made to
display learners’ work
210
Figure 4.28: Small group learning Figure 4.29: Correcting children’s work
This particular lesson lasted longer than planned. Neither the teacher nor the learners
made any comment about this. Issues surrounding time such as time allocation or time
intended for lessons, and actual time when children are on task, appear to be treated
flexibly in the school. In the post-lesson interview, the teacher did not seem to be
conversant with issues surrounding classroom management, seating arrangements, or
classroom layout, including student display. This suggests that her understanding of
active learning principles and how they relate to classroom practices was shallow.
The use of group work, a teacher-devised worksheet, and the school yard indicated that
the teacher was aware of the strategy of making use of a variety of learning aids and
resources. All other lessons observed took place in the classroom and used traditional
approaches to the use of resources and teacher aids. This confirms the analysis of class
interaction above: the pattern of classroom talk reinforces the view that the teacher‘s role
is to transmit knowledge and the learner‘s role is to be a passive recipient of knowledge.
211
The classroom discourse was a kind of recitation: the teachers asks a question in most
cases to test recall. Able learners would have their hands up while loudly calling ‗Saya,
saya!‘ (Me, me!) hoping to get the teacher‘s attention. Less confident learners would
normally be quiet and usually go unnoticed by the teacher, whose attention is given to the
noisy children who are more engaged with the lesson.
The analysis of questions asked by teachers to the class is illustrated in Figure 4.30,
below. This analysis indicates the prevelance of low-order, factual and closed types of
questions, for which the answer is known in advance by the teacher. The purpose of the
questions seems to be to determine who among the children can give the correct answer.
Very few higher-order questions were asked during the observed lessons. There were
three evaluative questions asked by Teacher 1, one by Teacher 2 and none by Teacher 3.
No questions asked could be categorized as requiring synthesis or analysis by the learners
(Morgan & Saxton, 1994).
212
Figure 4.30: Summary of Questions in Three Observed Classes (Frequency)
The learners appeared to genuinely enjoy being allowed outdoors for observing and
noting of various plants. This mix of activities undertaken by the students when outside
the classroom including listening to each other, observing, and making notes.
Figure 4.31: Science lesson in the playground Figure 4.32: Science lesson in the playground
213
Based on the interviews, teachers generally felt that what matters most to their
supervisors – and was thus important for them to comply with – was administration;
meeting various regulatory requirements, including lesson planning according to
established formulae. In the survey, 91 per cent of teachers reported that they take work
home. When asked what kind of homework they do, they all replied ‗administration‘,
which includes formal lesson planning among other tasks.
At this point it is relevant to mention a set of government policies which elaborate
teaching and learning in primary schools. Three documents, taken from the three
curricula of 1994, KBK 2000, and KTSP 2006, were referred to by teachers when they
implemented the active learning policy: (1) Petunjuk Pelaksanaan Kegiatan Belajar
Mengajar (Implementation Guide) issued in 1998, (2) Kegiatan Belajar Mengajar yang
Effektif (Effective Teaching and Learning) issued in 2004, and (3) Standar Proses
(Process Standard).
Some of the handwritten lesson planning documents reviewed during the classroom
observations referred to the first policy, while others referred to the second or third. This
suggests that within one school a variety of teaching practices took place. The extent of
policy implementation or adaptation by teachers appears to be largely at the discretion of
the teachers themselves.
214
Figure 4.33: Maths class
Figure 4.34: Maths class
Figure 4.35: Language class Figure 4.36: Science class
The school cluster system and school supervision
As described in the first chapter, all Indonesian primary schools (state and private) are
grouped in clusters. The cluster system was identified in national planning documents and
interviews with national officials as the main mechanism for disseminating the policy on
215
active learning and the new curriculum. The cluster system, where teachers and
principals‘ working groups are the basis for collegial activities, was identified in Chapter
Two as an approach to strengthening teacher professional development. As a result, a
study of the cluster system in the case districts forms an important part of the case study.
Schools were visited in eight clusters as described in Chapter Three. Two clusters were
visited in each in the four sub-districts of Tidore, North Tidore, Bacan South Halmahera,
and Jailolo West Halmahera; detailed case studies of the cluster system were conducted
in six of these. In three of these six, observations of cluster training activities were
undertaken.
The national government, through Policy Number 079/C/Kep/I/93 on the Manual for
Cluster-Based Professional Development of Primary School Teachers, formally provided
guidelines for the grassroots level structure to foster mutual support between
neighbouring schools and support the professional development of teachers at primary
and secondary school levels. The most significant aspects of the cluster system are the
teacher working groups (Kelompok Kerja Guru or KKG) and principal working groups
(Kelompok Kerja Kepala Sekolah or KKKS). KKG is a working group for primary school
teachers and MGMP which stands for Musyawarah Guru Mata Pelajaran is for
secondary teachers. KKG consists of the class-teachers of a number of schools working
together whilst MGMP are groupings of subject teachers from a number of secondary
schools drawn from a larger cluster of secondary schools – each MGMP focuses on a
different subject area.
216
The KKG/MGMP school clusters are a key component of teacher training and a critical
element in the quality improvement of teachers. These cluster groups are each managed
by a committee of teachers led by a coordinator. As reported by many teachers in the case
study, although they feel empowered through this working groups, teachers face serious
obstacles, some of which are beyond their expertise, to be able to design high quality
courses and to manage the training themselves.
Up to ten neighbouring schools are grouped into one cluster. One of these is identified as
the lead school, known as SD Inti or core school, and the remainder within the cluster are
known as SD Imbas or satellite schools. Similar groups are also established within this
cluster for the head teachers known as Kelompok Kerja Kepala Sekolah (KKKS) and for
the supervisors known as Kelompok Kerja Pengawas Sekolah (KKPS). Although they are
not always conducted, meetings are scheduled regularly.
Coordinators are provided with training to facilitate their work through the provincial
teacher training agency (LPMP/PPPG). Committee members are responsible for
identifying workshop leaders, either from within the schools of the cluster or from
outside schools. These may be expert teachers, supervisors, university lecturers, teachers
from LPMP or PPPG, speakers from private foundations or private consultants. Some
receive a small amount of funding from the district office on the basis of submissions
presented. The treasurer of the group is responsible for management of this funding.
Costs may be covered from this grant from the district or from fees paid by individual
teachers or from the budget of the school they attend.
217
The 2005 Law on Teacher Standards (Government of Indonesia, 2005c) requires that all
teachers in primary and secondary schools achieve a minimum standard of qualifications:
four-year diploma (D4) or graduate degree (S1). The majority of teachers – especially in
remote areas such as in North Maluku, are well under this level. In North Maluku, a
recent test conducted by LPMP related to teacher certification produced very
disappointing results. Of over 400 primary school teachers who sat the test, only one
teacher passed (personal interview and data from LPMP).
As confirmed in interviews with national bureaucrats, the cluster system is regarded by
the national Ministry of Education as a key element in its strategy to implement active
learning and improve the professional quality of the teaching force.
This section summarizes the findings of case studies of six selected clusters of schools in
three districts: South Halmahera, West Halmahera and Tidore Kepulauan City. These
findings are presented in two broad categories:
1. Management of KKG (organizational structure and components, funding,
program planning and implementation)
2. Effectiveness of KKG (obstacles, strengths and weaknesses.
Management of teacher clusters (KKG)
The management aspects are addressed in the case study summary tables from the
different perspectives of teachers, principals, supervisors, sub-district heads and district
officials interviewed.
218
Table 4.5: Case Study of Gugus 1, Kecamatan Tidore Utara
Organizational
Structure, its
component and
Funding
General Information Programme planning and
implementation (as
documented and reported
by teachers)
Perceived challenges and
teachers’ expectations
Perceived strengths
by teacher
Leadership roles
(largely defined by
the GOI policy)
and practices
The organizational
structure follows the
common GOI guidelines
putting school
supervisors and
principals as
(appointed) leaders. It
has one head, one
treasurer and one
secretary. The head
(who is a teacher) is
accountable to the
appointed leaders (see
attached photo of KKG
organizational structure
Figure 4.47).
Other than using some
portion of BOS funding,
no other funding
provision has been
available.
Relatively urban and
easily accessible (10
minutes by motor
vehicle from the dock),
a medium size cluster
with a total of 4 schools
including SD I Ruum
as core school and 89
members (teachers and
principals).
Except for Local
Content, it has two guru
pemandu (subject
matter instructors) for
each subject of Bahasa
Indonesia, Religion (i.e.
Islam), Citizenship,
Math, Science, Social
science, Sports &
Health, Arts & Craft.
Programme documents
mostly outdated, the current
one (2006/7) looks simple
and more like a timetable. It
seems to be a copy of
officially required tasks
(taken from government
policy document). No
contextual planning basis is
evident in the programme
documentation.
Similar to that in 2006, 2007
meetings were scheduled
once every fortnight making
a total of about 20 scheduled
meetings annually.
Lecturing seems to dominate
the delivery mode, leaving
very little or no opportunity
for participants to be actively
involved.
The instructors do not have
experience of or confidence with
experiential workshop
methodology. (Evident in the lack
of professional vocabulary.) A
monotonous delivery mode
appears to be the norm.
One of the satellite schools is a
long distance from the core school.
Funding for transportation for these
teachers is a problem.
Lack of funds to meet basic needs
(e.g. stationery)
Within the cluster and nearby
clusters, lack of good workshop
providers and presenters who have
good understanding of active
teaching methodologies and
problems rooted in teacher
practices is apparent.
Many teachers
especially the older
ones like to come to
the meetings more
for social purposes,
but the beginning
teachers find the
meetings useful
because these
provide them with a
chance to meet other
teachers and learn
from each other.
A high attendance
rate (over 80 per
cent) of teachers is
noted.
Technical
leadership from
appointed tutors
and supervisors is
lacking. It is not
clear whether there
are any tutors or, if
so, whether they
have a letter of
authority (SK) to
enable them to
exercise leadership.
219
Figure 4.37: Focus Group Discussion with teachers from Gugus 1, Kecamatan Tidore
Utara
Figure 4.38: Focus Group Discussion with teachers from Gugus 1, Kecamatan Tidore
Utara
Figure 4.39: Local children play in the soccer field.
220
Table 4.6: Case Study of Gugus 3, Kecamatan Tidore Utara
Organizational
Structure, its
component and
Funding
General Information Programme
(planning and
implementation)
Perceived challenges and
teachers’ expectations
Perceived strengths Leadership roles
Although, no primary
data on
organizational
structure was
collected due to the
unavailability of the
data in the school
visited, it is suspected
that the components
of this cluster is not
different from that
found in other cluster
in the same sub-
district.
It is clear that this
cluster receives no
block grant funding.
Urban and easily
accessible (15 minutes
with motor vehicle
from the dock), a
relatively big cluster
with 78 members
(teachers and
principals), a core
school.
Except for Sport and
Health (one only), for
each of these subject
areas, it has two
instructors; Bahasa
Indonesia, Religion
(i.e. Islam),
Citizenship, Maths,
Science, Social
science, Sports &
Health, Arts & Craft.
No primary data on
programming was
collected due to the
unavailability of the
data in the school
visited.
The discussion
highlighted many
aspects hindering the
effectiveness of the
training as described
in the next column.
According to some participants,
the instructors lack innovative
ideas on experiential workshop
methodology. No practical
demonstrations. A more active
approach, including
demonstration of active learning
methodologies would be
preferable.
Topics and material are
repetitious.
Lack of time efficiency, late
starts, delays in lunch break etc.
are apparently common.
Within the cluster and nearby
clusters, lack of good workshop
providers and presenters who
have good understanding of
active teaching methodologies
and problems rooted in teacher
practices is apparent.
Distant between core
schools and satellite
schools are close and
accessible by public
transport.
Schools are located in a
relatively prosperous and
beautiful environment.
Most teachers have
positive views about
KKG.
No primary data on
cluster leadership roles
were obtained directly
from the cluster heads
etc. however, secondary
data in the form of
teachers’ perception
suggest that leadership
is not particularly strong
which seems to be
typical within the sub-
district.
Schools visits to two
satellite schools (all
Madrasah) and
interviews with the head,
principal, and teachers of
one Madrasah indicate
positive relationship
between these schools
and the community.
221
Table 4.7: Case Study of Gugus 3, Kecamatan Bacan Timur
Organizational
Structure, its
component and
Funding
General Information Programme
(planning and implementation)
Perceived challenges
and teachers’
expectations
Perceived strengths Leadership roles
Data on organizational
structure was
unavailable at the time
of the observation.
Has received no cluster
(KKG) block grant
funding and used school
per capita operational
funds (BOS) instead.
Note: The school had
changed the visit plan
without notifying the
researcher. As a
consequence, the
school was not ready for
the visit. However, good
information was
generated from
conducting discussion
with a group of teachers
in the satellite schools
(SD Inpres Wayamiga).
Relatively rural but
easily accessible (20
minutes with motor
vehicle from Save the
Children UK – SCUK
- Office), a relatively
small cluster of 5
schools with a total of
35 teachers and
principals, one core
school, total number
of subject matter
instructors 9, two in
each for Religion (i.e.
Islam), Bahasa
Indonesia, and
Sports & Health, and
one in each for Math,
Science and Social
Studies, none in
citizenship, Arts &
Craft, and local
content.
As evident in Program Kerja KKG,
2005 ( an outdated document) ,
some level of programming was
conducted. The questions would
be whether this kind of
programming was also carried out
for the current year. It seems that
it does not because of the fact
that this is what the head of the
cluster produced when asked
whether there is any document
that the researcher could look to
indicate their programme.
It is difficult to assess the
effectiveness of these programme
and implementation. One thing
that is worth noting is that when
compared with the programme
documents of other visited
clusters, the level of the
programming of this cluster has
moved a little further from mere a
list of topics to include rationale,
goals etc.
See the note on
programme planning
(the third column) of an
important activity that
was conducted during
the visit.
Within the cluster and
nearby clusters, lack of
good workshop
providers and
presenters who have
good understanding of
active teaching
methodologies and
problems rooted in
teacher practices is
apparent.
Teachers are keen and
expect to be invited to
SCUK workshops, an
indication of willingness
to improve themselves.
There appears to be a
good working
relationship between
supervisors (pengawas)
and Sub-district office
(UPTD).
Teachers are generous
in giving time to attend a
special KKG workshop
when on holidays.
The cluster (KKG) head
has received training in
active learning (PAKEM)
provided by Save the
Children (SCUK) and
now can differentiate
between experiential
workshop with a lot of
practical activity and
demonstrations - as
opposed to one
dominated by lecture.
The leadership
provided by the head
of the sub-district,
pengawas, and head
of KKG are such that
it supports the
functionality of KKG.
The workshop this
cluster ran during
holiday time speaks
volumes about these
leaders’ and
teachers’ dedication.
It is interesting to
note the story of how
the head of the sub-
district received direct
cash from the head of
the education district.
222
Table 4.8: Case Study of Gugus 6, Kecamatan Bacan
Organizational
Structure, its
component and
Funding
General Information Programme
(planning and
implementation)
Perceived challenges
and teachers’
expectations
Perceived
strengths
Leadership roles
Data on organizational
structure was
unavailable at the time of
the observation.
Has received no block
grant funding.
Very rural and has to be
reached by motor vehicle
and wooden boat from
the district centre and by
boat from each satellite
school. A newly
established cluster with a
total of 6 schools and 29
members and not yet
operational at the time of
observation. The total
number of subject matter
instructors 13, two in
each for Religion (i.e.
Islam), Citizenship,
Bahasa Indonesia, Math,
Science and Social
Studies, and one for
Sports & Health, and
none for Arts & Craft,
and Local Content.
This cluster has not
yet prepared any
plans. It has not
started to operate as
a separate cluster.
Before the
establishment of this
cluster, these schools
belonged to a
different cluster.
Teachers attending the
discussion appear very
shy. A lot of prompting
and encouragement had
to be made to get them
express ideas.
It seems that the general
level of community
prosperity is low.
Within the cluster and
nearby clusters, lack of
good workshop providers
and presenters who have
good understanding of
active teaching
methodologies and
problems rooted in
teacher practices is
apparent.
The head of the
cluster shows a
determination that
this newly
established cluster
will operate soon.
The determination of the cluster
head who is still relatively young
is a good signal; however it is
too early to assess whether he
has the leadership skills
necessary for effective cluster
functioning.
The head of the sub-district
displays a high commitment to
make this newly established
cluster work. Details on how to
make it work was sketchy. It
appears that there is still
ongoing discussion in this level
as to what the plan is.
In the discussion with the group
including the sub-district head,
the atmosphere was cool;
teachers appeared hesitant in
expressing their ideas.
223
Table 4.9: Case Study of Gugus 1, Kecamatan Jailolo
Organizational
Structure, its
component and
Funding
General Information Programme
(planning and
implementation)
Perceived challenges
and teachers’
expectations
Perceived strengths Leadership roles
The organizational
structure follows the
common GOI guidelines
putting school
supervisors and
principals as (appointed)
leaders. It has one head,
one treasurer and one
secretary. The head
(who is a teacher) is
accountable to the
appointed leaders (see
attached photo of
Struktur Organisasi
KKG).
Other than using some
portion of BOS funding,
no other funding
provision has been
available.
The cluster is reached
by motor vehicle and
wooden boat (from
Ternate), a relatively
small cluster with only
few teachers attending.
When the visit took
place the total cluster
membership was 35
and only two subject
matter instructors were
assigned; one each for
Religion (i.e. Islam),
and Sports & Health.
No primary data on
programming was
collected due to the
unavailability of the data in
the school visited.
The discussion highlighted
many aspects hindering
the effectiveness of the
current training.
Using a ‘Force-Field
Analysis’ technique to
identify current
problem/issues/challenges
and possible ways to
overcome them as outlined
in the butcher paper, the
forum that was created by
the visit modelled good
problem solving practices.
On the issue of funding
and support to be
generated from the
parents and the
community, teachers
express their
disappointment over
what seems to be a lack
of commitment by the
community.
Within the cluster and
nearby clusters, lack of
good workshop providers
and presenters who have
good understanding of
active teaching
methodologies and
problems rooted in
teacher practices is
apparent.
The level of energy
displayed by the group of
teachers, (many of them
are in their mid thirties)
attending the discussion
was high and this is a
good indication of a
vibrant group.
Most teachers show
confident in expressing
ideas and the
relationship among them
appears to be close.
See the note on
programme planning (the
third column) of an
important activity that
was conducted during
the visit.
As perceived by
teachers, the leadership
provided by the
supervisors and sub-
districts education office
is not strong. Teachers
complain about not being
visited and supported in
KKG (This could not be
verified due to the limited
time available during the
visit).
However, as evident in
the meeting atmosphere
being warm and open
where participants were
confident in expressing
ideas, it seems
reasonable to assume
that the leadership
provided at the cluster
level is very supportive.
224
Table 4.10: Comparative Case Study of Gugus 5, Kecamatan Tidore
Organizational
Structure, its
component and
Funding
General Information Programme
(planning and
implementation)
Perceived
challenges and
teachers’
expectations
Perceived strengths Leadership roles
Data on organizational
structure was
unavailable at the time of
the observation.
Relatively rural and
easily accessible (45
minutes with
public/motor vehicle from
the dock), a relatively
small cluster of 4 schools
with a total of 35
teachers and principals.
The total number of
subject matter instructors
is 17, consisting of two in
each of the following
Religion (i.e. Islam),
Bahasa Indonesia,
Math, Science and
Social Studies,
Citizenship, Arts & Craft,
and Local Content and
one for Sports & Health.
Programme development
follows what seems to be
logical processes -
starting with creating the
big picture (Vision and
Mission) followed by
goals setting and
deciding on scheduling.
Participatory workshop
delivery methods
including Micro-teaching
is recognized and has
been used.
Programme reportedly
focus on various
improvement in teaching
& learning – process and
evaluation (PAKEM),
students’ enrichment
programme, and
professional
developments.
Inadequate funding -
apart from school
operational funds
(BOS).
A small number of
teachers are identified
as: (1) reportedly the
senior teachers -
unwilling to learn and
resistant to change,
(2) reluctant to
discuss teaching
difficulties they face.
Teachers (apart from the small
group of ‘resistent’ teachers) are
generally keen to attend cluster
(KKG) workshops and ready to
learn.
Core school is easily accessible
by public transport/ Has relatively
easy access to a group of
committed trainers including in it a
respected, highly committed and
experienced tutor.
The programme development
follows what seems to be logical
process. Vision and mission
reportedly focus on improvement
in teaching & learning process
and evaluation (PAKEM),
students’ enrichment programme,
and professional developments
compared with other rural sub-
districts, most teachers are
suitably qualified.
The leaders seem
to have narrow
understanding
about teachers’
and students’
needs and lack
capacity to provide
supportive
leadership skills
and practices.
225
Table 4.11: Case Study of Gugus 1, Kecamatan Kecamatan Jailolo
Organizational
Structure, its
component and
Funding
General Information Programme
(planning and
implementation)
Perceived challenges and
teachers’ expectations
Perceived
strengths
Leadership roles
Participants do not
recognise the basic
organisational structure
of cluster.
Participants express that
funding is inadequate.
It has to be reached by
motor vehicle and
wooden boat from
Ternate, a relatively
small cluster with many
teachers attending.
When the visit took
place, total number of
cluster members was 35
with only two subject
matter instructors, one
each for Religion (i.e.
Islam), and Sports &
Health - and none for the
rest of the subject
matters.
No proper programme
planning and
development was ever
conducted, meetings are
incidental.
Lack of funding to meet meeting
consumption, lack of cluster
facilities, supervisors lack
commitment, no tutors within
the cluster or nearby, lack of
time efficiency, late starts,
many teachers are reported to
be reluctant to attend KKG,
At times, meeting atmosphere
is uncomfortable and negative,
especially when there is
disagreement. Reportedly there
are on-going debates where
neither side can accept other
points of view, tendency to
repeat points, lack of valuing
inputs from others, wanting to
score points.
Access between
satellite and core
schools is
relatively easy,
cluster members
include one
Madrasah.
Roles and
responsibilities as
outlined in the guidelines
are not recognized,
participants comment
openly about the lack of
commitment from their
supervisors.
226
Figure 4.40 & 4.41: Focus Group Discussions with teachers and school supervisors, Jailo
Figure 4.42: Interview, Bacan
Figure 4.43: Demonstration of active learning (science) KKG at SD N Mafututu, Gugus V,
Kecamatan Tidore Selatan
Figure 4.44: Demonstration of active learning (science) KKG at SD N Mafututu,
Gugus V, Kecamatan Tidore
Figure 4.45: Demonstration of active learning (science) KKG at SD N
Mafututu, Gugus V, Tidore Selatan
227
KKG structure
With regard to components/organizational structure of Cluster-Based Teacher
Professional Development, out of the six visited clusters, two (KKG Gugus I SD Ruum
and KKG Gugus III SDN I Jailolo) displayed the components close to that outlined in the
policy document, Pedoman Pengelolaan Gugus Sekolah (1995). This display was found
on a board in the administration area of the head school of each cluster.
1. Pembina (Technical and managerial leaders) – school supervisors, tutors
(technical) and cluster head (Management – usually the principal of the core
school)
2. Ketua KKG (Head of the teacher working group – usually a teacher)
3. Wakil Ketua KKG (Deputy Head of the teacher working group – usually a
teacher)
4. Bendahara (treasurer – usually a teacher)
5. Sekretaris (secretary – usually a teacher)
6. Guru Pemandu Bidang Studi (Subject teacher facilitators)
7. Anggota (Members - teachers from the schools – usually grouped under class
levels)
However, the display of these components on a table, usually attached in the office wall
of the principal‘s or head of cluster‘s office of the core school, does not necessarily imply
a good understanding of how each component relates to the others, nor does it imply a
good understanding of effective implementation of the cluster working group (KKG)
program by those involved. It seems to be a symbolic display with very little substance.
228
Figure 4.46: Example of formal cluster structure from SDI Ruum.
The system perspective
The table below sets out in summary form the findings in relation to cluster management
from the perspective of each level in the system.
The first column lists relevant references which provide a theoretical basis for cluster
management and cluster-based professional development of teachers. This includes
relevant published government guidelines for cluster management and professional
development of primary school teachers. Subsequent columns in the table summarise the
perceptions of officials at each level in the system providing a vertical slice from the
national level, through the province, district, sub-district and cluster levels.
229
Table 4.12: Cluster management and teacher professional development: perspectives from each level in the education system
Theory including previous research
Central Government (including LPMP as a
technical unit of PMPTK)
Provincial Government
(DIKJAR Prop. Malut)
District Government Sub-District Government (including sub-district head and school supervisors)
Cluster (including principals and
teachers)
Many references both written in English and Indonesian highlight the importance of teacher professional development – principles, strategies etc. including in these are: (1)List of Recommendation Daftar rekomendasi, (2) CD Pengelolaan Gugus, (3) Two policy documents of Pembinaan Profesional Guru Sekolah Dasar ((Professional Development Guidelines for Indonesian Teachers of Primary School) and Pengelolaan Gugus (Cluster System Professional Development Guidelines), and 4) A research conducted locally (Laporan penelitian -Malik Hamid 2005)
Two major policy references are referred to in the data collection: (1) Pedoman Pembinaan Profesional Guru SD (Professional Development Guidelines for Indonesian Teachers of Primary School) , and (2) Pedoman Pengelolaan Gugus Sekolah (Cluster System Professional Development Guidelines).
Major principles are still being referred to in the current system and an interview with the writer in May 2007).
Amidst its current condition and settings which would benefit from strong program intervention, North Maluku LPMP could play significant roles in school
Information on cluster-based teacher PD, especially on Teacher working group was not available because this office was not assigned to manage any of such programmes.
A national program of Model Cluster – one in each province has been in place for several years. One Model of Cluster in South Sulawesi Province was visited (As a reference See Attached Program Planning from this cluster, p. ii – 8)
Almost none of the visited three districts education offices have substantial data which could be used to assist in the assessment of KKG effectiveness. Only data on number of KKG within the district is available but are not much use. These offices play important roles to improve cluster effectiveness although do not always understand the depth of their roles or have the capacity to perform the roles. Most acknowledge the state of their school clusters low effectiveness.
Kakancam/Kasubdin (sub-district heads), tutor, and supervisor (pengawas) are the designated cluster driving force. Often felt
Sub-district plays significant roles as the driving force for cluster effectiveness.
It is closely positioned to understand, monitor all activities, progress etc. of cluster programmes.
The visited offices tend to see lack of financial support as the main cause of the low effectiveness of cluster, have vague and rather shallow understanding of the principles of cluster –based PD as envisaged in the guidelines.
Most visited clusters have wall display of administrative requirement (often the data is old and if current these do not suggest any level of significance to whether the system works effectively or not)
Positioned as a grass root, teachers in these clusters provides real picture of how the cluster system works, in many cases they have not worked as envisaged. Challenges often resided in both cluster management as well as in technical understanding about school management and teaching and learning. These have had impacted negatively on their capacity to identify
230
The researcher has electronic copies of some of the English references.
professional development program. Better coordination with all stakeholders (from both sides) ( provincial, district, sub-district, schools and NGO) is needed. Information on various aspects of teacher professional development programs including funding for cluster-based PD could be more widely disseminated.
The central government ongoing commitment to empower KKG can be seen in the Bermutu project.
neglected by the district, they are critical in improving cluster effectiveness. Coordination with these people is critical for any programs aimed to improve cluster effectiveness.
.
relevant problems in their cluster and the proposed solution to these problems.
231
Summary of findings
The various tables above detail the perceptions of informants and the researcher‘s findings on
the management and functioning of the cluster system, with particular reference to each of
the clusters included in the case study and the perspectives of officials at each level in the
system.
The cluster working groups known as KKG and KKKS are an inseparable part of the system
for cluster-based teacher professional development, based conceptually on the manual
Professional Development of Primary School Teachers (Abdullah, 2003). This manual
developed more than a decade ago recognizes one feature – support from colleagues, being
most effective in sustaining changes in teachers‘ professional development. However, it has
not put heavy emphasis on the following three roles for clusters as identified in the literature
in Chapter Two (MacNeil, 2004): (1) providing pragmatic goals, (2) activities that include
both technical and conceptual aspects of instruction, and (3) frequent opportunities for
teachers to witness the effects that their efforts have on students‘ learning.
The motivation of teachers and principals to attend KKG is relatively high. Teachers,
principals and supervisors all report that they enjoy the opportunity to meet regularly with
colleagues and appreciate the need for professional development, and thus most attend.
The level of understanding of cluster (KKG and KKKS) management by most stakeholders
(teachers, principals, supervisors, sub-district heads and others who are responsible for cluster
functioning) is not yet at a deep level. This leads to a tendency to oversimplify problems that
arise.
232
Effectiveness of teacher clusters (KKG)
Although many teachers have positive views about the cluster system (KKG), there is not yet
an indication that the approach to teacher professional development conceptualized in the
Manual (Ministry of National Education, 1993, pp. 21-24), as well as in the literature
surveyed in Chapter Two (e.g., MacNeil, 2004; Reimers, 2003) works the way it was
envisaged. As a consequence, the problems identified by stakeholders tend to be immediate
and superficial – such as lack of funds, loose schedules, transportation and so on. Although
these are certainly real issues, the deeper, underlying issues such as a good conceptual basis
for professional development as being most effective in sustaining changes are not
recognized.
At the district level, commitment and consistent planning aimed at empowering the cluster
(KKG) system as a tool for teacher professional development is lacking. Where support
exists, such as block grants for KKG, this originates from the national budget (through the
province level teacher quality assurance centres, LPMP). The working relationship between
the LPMP (which is part of the central government apparatus) and the district (which are
independent under regional autonomy laws) is not yet deliniated.
Roles and responsibilities of key personnel as identified in the Manual (Ministry of National
Education, 1993) are not yet operational. For example, tutors do not yet function as the
‗driving force‘ for clusters visited. A number of critical tasks have been identified for these
technical leaders in the Manual:
1. arrange school visits to generate teachers‘ interest and identify teaching and learning
issues for workshop planning,
233
2. coordinate with the management team (including school supervisors, principals) to
plan and prepare cluster workshop for teachers (KKG),
3. conduct the workshops and follow up by providing onsite support for teachers to
implement new skills acquired from the workshop,
4. be actively involved in teacher workshops and encourage innovative ideas; help
teachers make simple teaching aids, act as a resource person by sharing knowledge
learnt from colleagues and books, maximize the management and use of the cluster
resource centre (Pusat Kegiatan Guru, or PKG) located in the core school, and
5. attend district coordinating meetings to discuss their work. (Ministry of National
Education, 1993, pp. 21-24)
Although there is clear information on the number of tutors (guru pemandu) – see the case
study tables - it is not clear exactly what training they have received. There are also other
teachers who have been trained as facilitators by various projects, but these are not
recognized in the system or often effectively utilized. In general terms the tutors seem
unaware of these responsibilities. It appears in general that the tasks listed above are not
completed and the approach envisaged is not implemented at all. Tutors report that they have
not been given the authority (letter of authority), time, or funds to perform the tasks listed. It
is clear that the tutors also require further training in order to effectively complete the tasks
and play the role expected of them.
School supervisors in Tidore demonstrated a better understanding of the expectations, but
reportedly felt that they were not supported and so did not perform these tasks fully. Tasks
listed in the Manual (Ministry of National Education, 1993) are as follows:
a. Arranging tutor visits to schools and classes
234
b. Provide input and support to the tutors in relation to visits
c. Monitoring teachers and principals in the implementation of newly acquired
skills
d. Monitoring reforms in classroom practice occurring as a result of the program
e. Providing input into cluster workshop (KKG) planning (Ministry of National
Education, 1993, pp. 21-24)
Supervisors reported that they have not had the necessary training, especially in active
learning (PAKEM) and school-based curriculum (KTSP). Tight budgets for transport also
limit their activity. In the clusters visited, apart from the problem of weak leadership, there
are further challenges evident in the management and planning of workshops. These include
the following: (1) training is ‗old style‘, (2) programming does not yet reflect the real needs
of participants, (3) conflicts are unresolved in some cases, (4) the schedule of activity for
clusters varied widely, (5) the distance of satellite schools from the core school is also a
problem in some cases, and (6) financial support needs to be increased.
Training delivery is ‗old-style‘.
Features identified by the informants included: dominated by lecture style, does not tend to
engage participants in active learning, monotonous tone of voice, and lack of demonstration
of teaching styles required to engage students in active learning. Interestingly, when a more
active approach was taken by one progressive facilitator, he reported feeling that the
approach intimidated the participants, creating an uncomfortable situation. (This is likely due
to lack of experience both from the facilitator and the participants.)
235
Traning is not yet needs-based
The professional development program available does not yet reflect the real needs of
participants. It does not yet seem to be based on a needs analysis (which is the work of the
tutor) and topics are often repeated from one session to the next. Programs tend to be lists of
topics which are uniform in all six visited clusters. There is little evidence of planning beyond
this standard list. This accounts for the uniform delivery of material.
Conflicts are unresolved
Conflict is a problem in specific contexts: In one cluster participants reported an
uncomfortable atmosphere during discussion, especially when disagreement arises.
Schedules vary
The schedule of activity for clusters varied widely. In one cluster (SDI Indomut) the program
was not yet developed. This cluster has not yet become operational since its establishment in
2006. In another (SDN1 Jailolo) teachers reported that there were 40 scheduled meetings in
the year. Conflicting reports from teachers make it difficult to determine exactly how many
meetings took place. The Manual specifies 26 fortnightly meetings as the standard in a
normal year.
Distance from isolated schools
Distance of satellite schools from the core school is also a problem in some cases –
particularly in SD Inpres Indomut. Although in relatively urbanised areas, such as those in the
sub-district of North Tidore, most teachers have access to a motorbike or public transport, it
is apparent that geographical access to the core schools by some of the satellite schools
presents a real obstacle.
236
Finances
Finally, financial support for the cluster system needs to be greater. In the past, at the national
level, budgeting for empowering teacher networks has relied on external donors. Donor-
funded projects such as ALPS (CBSA), PEQIP, SEQIP, CLCC, and others have worked to
strengthen the cluster system. This trend continues with current projects. The problem with
this history is that it has led to an expectation that external funding is necessary for clusters to
function – and that without such funding nothing is possible. It has also led to a tendency for
districts and other potential funding agencies to overlook the need to allocate funds to the
cluster system. Having said this, there appears to be initiative from local leaders in the
clusters to maintain the KKG meetings. Funding is usually found from the schools
themselves (currently from BOS funds and prior to this from Badan Pembantu
Penyelenggara Pendidikan, BP3 – school community contributions). These funds are
required mainly for refreshments (tea, coffee, sugar, snacks and sometimes lunch). Transport
funds were generally not provided in the past, but are now often expected.
Beginning in 2006-2007 block grants have also been provided to KKG from the national
budget (APBN) through the province-level LPMP. This is limited by a quota, meaning that
only a percentage of KKG can access the funds, based on a proposal system. Out of six
schools clusters visited, only one cluster – Gugus II in East Bacan sub-district, of which SD
Inpres Babang is the core school - obtained a KKG Block grant. This cluster received Rp10
million to support KKG activities in the current year. Some issues surround the dissemination
of information on the new system. LPMP personnel report that few proposals were received.
Monitoring and evaluation of the use of the funds and program implementation at cluster
level is also lacking. The budget for 2006-2007 only covered 33 clusters in the province of
North Maluku, between two and seven clusters in each district.
237
At the district level no funding is specifically allocated to support clusters. However, in one
district, funding allocated for training was provided, though managed by the district and not
by the cluster. Surprisingly, many school supervisors and heads of KKGs in Bacan, Tidore,
and Jailolo, did not seem to express any frustration at not knowing the budget allocated for
KKGs. Some said that they asked about the funding, but were told there was none. This kind
of answer is what they said they hear most of the time, and this has made many of them feel
reluctant to ask questions about funding situation. As one school supervisor put it: ―I am
grateful for the cash given to me to support our KKGs but should not ask too many questions
as to where the cash comes from etc. It is against our culture to ask questions on this matter.‖
Without information and without transparency, it is very difficult to plan ahead, to develop
coherent and effective educational programs, and to monitor and assess the flow of funds
through the system. When the above sources of funding are not available, schools and
teachers have limited resources to draw on to pay for any school-based professional
development activities. At the time of this research none of the three districts of Kota Tidore
Kepulauan, South and West Halmahera had allocated budgetary resources to KKG training
activities.
Teacher Survey
The survey focused on three topics: teacher perceptions of children and how they learn,
issues of curriculum implementation and school leadership. The sample of 47 teachers
included four principals. The remainder were classroom teachers. Most responded to all
items. (Appendix 12 lists the items and number of responses to each item.)
238
The majority of respondents (76 per cent) were female, which is indicative of the gender
balance in schools observed. The majority of teachers were experienced: 67 per cent had over
10 years‘ experience. The majority were between 30 and 50 years of age. The sample
included teachers of all primary school grades. Within the sample group, 19 per cent held a
four-year batchelor degree, 57 per cent held a two-year diploma and 21 per cent were
graduates of the old technical teaching high school program known as Sekolah Pendidikan
Guru (SPG). Although the participants were not randomly sampled and all came from the
same school cluster, this profile may be regarded as broadly representative of the wider
teaching force in North Maluku.
Understandings about children and how they learn
Teachers were asked to choose answers to items about children and how they learn. An
understanding about children and how they learn is an important part of teacher knowledge.
When combined with knowledge of subject matter and classroom management, it can
improve teachers‘ choice of teaching strategies, including strategies to help children become
active learners.
When asked about nutrition and children‘s capacity to learn, 28 per cent of respondents
strongly agreed and 45 per cent agreed with the statement that nutrition makes a difference to
how children learn. Thus 73 per cent of respondents believe that nutrition is a significant
factor in determining children‘s learning outcomes.
Over 90 per cent of teachers disagreed or strongly disagreed with the statement: ‗When a
child is slow learning it usually because they are stupid‘. This suggests a common view
among teachers about the issue. It is possible that some respondents answered according to
239
what they thought they should believe, rather than what they actually believe in private.
However, this is conjecture. If this result reflects the reality of teachers‘ perceptions, it is
reasonable to suggest that they believe that the quality of learning outcomes is determined by
what teachers and children do – rather than by children‘s predisposition and inherited traits.
A majority respondents disagreed with the following two statements: ‗Girls are not born
equally as active as boys‘ (91 per cent) and ‗Boys are born smarter than girls‘ (97 per cent).
The results suggest a consistent perception. If these results reflect the reality of teacher
perceptions, they illustrate a belief that gender does not determine whether children are active
or smart.
Respondents were asked to respond to items surrounding the issue of how children learn.
Contrary to the responses to earlier items, which suggest that teachers believe children play
an active role in learning, the following responses suggest that many teachers believe that
children learn in an essentially passive way. Some 57 per cent agreed with the statement:
‗Children learn best by watching an adult and copying‘. This result appears to reflect a
traditional view of knowledge and learning, as discussed in the sections on culture in
Chapters One and Two. Children learn by passively observing and imitating the behaviour of
adults who have mastered the topic.
240
Figure 4.47: Children learn best by watching an adult and copying (Percentage of responses)
It is important to note that the context of this statement is children learning at schools as
opposed to early learning of infants. It is reasonable to assume that respondents‘
understanding about how children learn is guided by traditional or ‗indigenous‘ modes of
learning which do not encourage children to be active learners who should be encouraged to
think for themselves. In other words, more than half of the respondents seem to have a
traditional conceptual understanding about children‘s learning.
Respondents were also asked to respond to the statements: ‗Smart children are born that way‘
and ‗What a child brings from birth determines his/her intelligence‘. The responses were
more balanced for these items, with 40 per cent of teachers agreeing with the first statement
and 55 per cent disagreeing. Responses to the second statement were evenly split: 48 per cent
agreed and 48 per cent disagreed. This suggests a divergence of views within the sample.
Close to half regard intelligence as inherited and half do not. Interestingly, this contrasts with
the previous item, where over 90 per cent of respondents disagreed with the statement that
‗slow learning‘ is usually a result of the child‘s stupidity. The reason for this is unclear.
241
However, it seems clear that teachers are generally confused as to the cause of ‗slow
learning‘ but they are unwilling to blame the child for stupidity – at least in the context of this
survey.
Teachers were also asked questions intended to assess the extent to which the traditional view
of the good child being one who is quiet and does not ask many questions prevails.
Traditionally, children asking too many questions are considered disrespectful. It appears that
the majority of respondents have adopted new attitudes about children and what it means to
be a good child.
There was a consistency in the beliefs expressed about physical punishment as a form of
disciplining children. On the question of the importance of good relationships between
teachers and students, 93 per cent disagreed that relationships are unimportant. The results
suggest that teachers regard physical punishment as inappropriate and recognize the
importance of good relationships between the teacher and the learner.
Curriculum implementation
Given that meeting administrative requirements is regarded as a priority by supervisors (as
revealed in interviews) and is very time consuming for teachers, it is refreshing to know that
more than half of the respondents report that they think active learning consists of more than
just the sum of all the planning documents from which the teachers‘ performances are being
judged. More than half of the respondents also reported that they receive continous guidance
to write these adminstrative documents.
242
More than a quarter of respondents expressed the belief that lectures are an effective form of
professional development. Considering that this type of activity is prevalent, it could be
argued that repondents are not aware of alternative and more effective forms of professional
development. Therefore the answer is not unexpected. It is reasonable to argue that this belief
highlights the need for teachers to be exposed to different forms of professional development.
It is interesting to learn that more than half of the respondents reportedly believed they had
received material on the new curriculum. The survey did not explore these issues further:
however, interviews and observations did reveal that teachers were unfamiliar with the details
of the new curriculum, lacked conceptual understanding about active learning, and did not
feel confident to implement it.
More than half of the respondents agreed with the statement that school supervisors do not
yet understand the new curriculum or active learning. This is consistent with the finding from
the interviews that teachers‘ regard their supervisors as lacking in technical understanding
about active learning.
More than three-quarters (83 per cent) of the respondents agreed that the regional training
centre (LPMP) played an important role in the success of active learning implementation and
a similar number (78 per cent) agree with the statement that the District Education Office
played an important role. Similarly, the majority of respondents agreed with statements
highlighting the importance of coordination between the two institutions. These findings
reinforce the importance of the role of these institutions in the successful application of active
learning and implementation of the new curriculum.
243
More than three quarters of the respondents agreed with the statement that it is difficult to
obtain material for active learning and the new curriculum. However, a majority of the
respondents also agreed that teachers have received printed material on the new curriculum.
This apparent contradiction may be explained with reference to the visit made to the district
by the staff of the national Curriculum Centre reported by some respondents leading to the
decision made by Sekolah Merdeka to adopt KTSP. It is reasonable to assume that material
about the new curriculum was distributed then. The two apparently contradictory findings
highlight the confusion among teachers about the new curriculum and also suggest that the
materials received from the Curriculum Centre were insufficient to explain to teachers about
active learning and the new curriculum.
Educational leadership, obstacles and support for teacher improvement
A majority of the respondents (94 per cent) expressed the belief that a good relationship
between teachers and the principal is an important factor for a school to progress. Half of the
respondents (52 per cent) agreed with the statement that good school is a school that has a lot
of trophies (for sport, speaking competitions, artwork, science olympiad, mathematics
olympiad, Qur‘anic recital etc.), while 41 per cent of respondents disagreed with this
statement (7 per cent were unsure). This interesting divergence of opinion could indicate
that, while many teachers believe that physical attributes and individual achievements
indicate the quality of the school, many believe that this is not the case.
More than three-quarters of the respondents agree with the statements about teachers‘
meetings: (1) that in their schools meetings were held regularly (98 per cent), and (2) that the
meetings were held each week (84 per cent). More than three-quarters of the respondents (87
per cent) disagreed with the statement that major policy decisions in their school were made
244
by the principals without consulting teachers. Some 96 per cent of teachers disagreed with the
statement that, ‗as a teacher I do not need to get involved in solving problems, because it is
the principal‘s job to solve problems,‘ and a similar 95 per cent of respondents disagreed with
the statement that ‗teachers do not need to be involved in policy decisions regarding school
finance.‘
In order to gain an understanding of teacher perceptions of the curriculum implementation
process, respondents were asked to rank two items: the sources of impediments to teaching
improvement and the sources of support for improvement. In both cases, respondents were
provided with a list of nine sources and asked to rank them from those contributing the most
to those contributing least. The graphs 4.49 and 4.50, below, show the percentage of
respondents who ranked each item in their top three.
The great majority (85 - 89 per cent) mentioned the following three impediments to teaching
improvement in their top three rankings: teachers and their environment, learners and their
environment, and schools and their environment. The next two sources with fewer high
rankings but still significant were the central government (45 per cent) and the district
government (43 per cent). Interestingly, superiors (principals and school supervisors) were
also mentioned as a source of impediment by 40 per cent of respondents. This finding is
corroborated in the interviews reported in the section below (See Figure 5.51).
245
Figure 4.48:
This response, and particularly the high ranking of teachers themselves as an obstacle to
reform, is consistent with the findings of interviews with selected teachers discussed later in
this chapter; teachers reported that they do not have an adequate conceptual or technical
understanding about active learning and how to use it in their teaching.
246
Figure 4.49: Sources of Assistance (Percentage: Top Three Rankings)
Respondents were also asked to rank the sources of help they use in order to improve their
practise. Results, illustrated in Figure 4.50 above, indicate that cluster-based meetings and
workshops, and other school-based teachers‘ workshops, are perceived as the most common
form of support for professional development, with 96 per cent and 72 per cent of
respondents mentioning these respectively in their top three. Interestingly, learning from
religious institutions is also mentioned by 64 per cent respondents as a source of help. Other
sources which received significant number of high rankings are as follows:
247
- A formal government type of training called penataran by 45 per cent of
respondents
- Learning from pre-service college education, by 40 per cent of respondent
- Learning from community and ethnic/cultural contexts by 21 per cent respondents
Interviews
A series of structured and unstructured or open interviews was conducted with teachers and
principals, as described in Chapter 3. The key themes or topics covered in the interviews
were as follows:
1. Sources of information about active learning. Teachers were asked where they learned
about active learning (or PAKEM).
2. Teachers‘ concerns about active learning and implementation of the curriculum.
Teachers were asked what concerns they had.
3. Teachers‘ concerns about the performance of tasks. They were asked to discuss what
concerns or worries they had about active learning from a technical classroom
perspective.
4. Concerns about other people. Respondents were asked what concerns, if any, they had
about others in relation to the implementation of active learning approaches.
5. Other concerns. Finally, teachers were asked what other concerns they have that had
not already been discussed.
The main responses and themes which emerged from discussion of each of these topics were
coded and results are presented and discussed below.
248
Active learning: teachers‘ source of information
Figure 4.50:
Figure 4.50, above, describes the frequency of mentions for each source of information on
active learning that respondents identified in the interviews. These sources vary and can be
classified into mainly written, or text-based sources and non-written sources in the form of
people and in-service training. The non-written sources that were mentioned in the interviews
included: school principals, supervisors, and district instructors, all of whom are within the
Indonesian primary schooling system. In-service teacher training was also mentioned as a
source in this category. The frequent mention of people (or non-written sources) by many
respondents is not unexpected because these people are part of the daily lives of these
teachers, be it when they were working in the schools or in the society in general. It might
also be suggested that, as traditional communities in Indonesia are still predominately an oral
culture, it is natural that people are seen as the main source of information. Books,
newspapers and magazines are not common in villages – and are scarce even in the homes of
249
teachers. The whole island of Tidore was observed not to have even one bookshop, and there
was just one sample primary school that subscribed to a local newspaper at the time of the
study.
The fact that teachers mentioned these sources, but not computers as a source of information,
as explained below, could be taken to mean that teachers tend to find these sources easy to
access. The sources mentioned fit with their oral cultural habits; talking to people is more
accessible than, say, using computers or reading books. What stands out as missing in the
interview themes is that no respondents mentioned computer-based sources, even when they
were prompted.
This is surprising in the sense that, despite the vast amount of information available in the
internet, including on learning, pedagogy and curriculum, these teachers did not make use of
this resource. Could this be because they did not have the technology, or could it be due to
non-technical reasons including culture? The interview results cannot answer these questions
with certainty but, based on my observations while living with these teachers, it is reasonable
to suggest that both technical and cultural constraints are relevant. Only one of the 47
teachers interviewed, reportedly owned and made use of computer in his work, while the rest
of the teachers had somebody else type for them. This was evident in the student worksheets
that were used by some teachers, including those that were observed and in the lesson
planning documents obtained from some of the respondents. The oral basis of the culture and
society in which these teachers live was confirmed through observation. This included
observations of many events that took place in the community.
250
Another unexpected finding is that none of these teachers mentioned that cluster-based
training was a source of information on active learning. The cluster-based training system has
been in existence for more than twenty years and, according to national government
documents analysed and the interviews with national level officials, the cluster system is
regarded as they key mechanism for disseminating the new curriculum and policy on active
learning. Having observed the way training was conducted, however, it is reasonable to
suggest that an ineffective training approach is a significant contributing factor. This was
verified in observations, as discussed in the earlier section in this chapter. Interestingly, this
contrasts with the survey results, which found that cluster meetings were seen by teachers as
a key source of help for improving their teaching practice.
Active learning: teachers‘ understanding and concerns
Although many of them have heard the term before, none of the respondents could clearly
articulate active learning as a concept in teaching and learning. All of the 47 people
interviewed said that they have concerns about the methods of active learning, and their
process of impleting it. All said they need support to implement it. None were able to
describe active learning as a set of teaching and learning strategies. One respondent who was
an instructor clearly articulated his concern below:
My understanding of PAKEM is that it is learning which is active, creative, effective, and
fun. I have not yet mastered one-by-one how this PAKEM is translated in terms of: learning
what; actively in the process of teaching and learning in the real sense of what it's like; how
is it supposed to be creative; what are the effective arrangements such for managing time,
and how is the learning supposed to be fun (T41F).
Pengertian PAKEM yang sudah saya pahami adalah pembelajaran aktif, kreatif, efektif, dan
menyenangkan. Yang belum saya kuasai satu demi satu adalah penjabaran PAKEM dalam
251
hal: pembelajarannya seperti apa; aktif dalam arti sesungguhnya dalam proses KBM itu
seperti apa; kreatif yang diharapkan itu bagaimana; efektif pengaturan waktu seperti apa;
dan menyenangkan belajarnya itu bagaimana (T41F).
Most respondents reported they had heard the current Indonesian term PAKEM, which
refers active learning before, and they were able to explain what it stands for, but they
reported being more familiar with the older term CBSA, which stands for Cara Belajar
Siswa Aktif or Student Active Learning Approach. Concern was expressed about the varying
degree of quality of training that the teachers in the area received. A typical comment was:
There is good information available from education and from people who really understand
and are able to describe, present, and give examples of learning with the real PAKEM
approach. There are specialized references available in the form of user guides for each
subject, providing a chronological PAKEM approach per-subject. So, education expert after
education expert, up until now seem to have different views and expectations about what
PAKEM is. For example, one expert said that PAKEM is an instructional strategy while other
experts say that PAKEM is more than just a strategy, as it is a learning approach. This needs
to be discussed openly so that we can have a shared view. If allowed to continue like this it
will be confusing! If they themselves are confused, what about the average teacher, who is
still basically a lay person? (T07M).
Adanya informasi baik itu dari ahli tenaga kependidikan maupun dari orang-orang yang
memang benar-benar paham dan mampu mendeskripsikan, mempresentasikan, memberi
contoh tentang pembelajaran dengan pendekatan PAKEM yang sesungguhnya. Adanya karya
ilmiah dalam bentuk buku petunjuk per-mata pelajaran, tentang kronologis per-mata
pelajaran dengan pendekatan PAKEM. Sebab ahli pendidikan demi ahli pendidikan, selama
ini mempunyai pandangan yang berbeda dan prediksi tentang PAKEM yang berbeda pula.
Misalnya, ahli satu mengatakan bahwa PAKEM merupakan strategi pembelajaran sementara
252
ahli lainnya mengatakan bahwa PAKEM itu lebih dari sekedar strategi tetapi merupakan
pendekatan pembelajaran. Hal ini perlu terus dibicarakan secara terbuka sehingga bisa
dicari satu persamaan pandang. Kalau dibiarkan terus akan simpang siur, kalau mereka saja
simpang siur, apa lagi guru yang rata-rata masih awam (T07M).
Another respondent highlighted the way the active learning workshops were conducted: participants
were given lectures and printed materials explaining how to implement active learning. This is
illustrated below:
So far, all the training events, models, learning strategies, and teaching aids are packaged as
modules (textbook / handbook) only and they are always delivered with the lecture method
(T27M).
Selama ini setiap ada diklat, model dan strategi pembelajaran, alat-alat bantu mengajar
hanya dikemas dalam bentul modul (diktat/buku pedoman) saja dan itu selalu disampaikan
dengan metode ceramah (T27M).
Teachers‘ expressed concern over the lack of learning materials and financial support to
compensate their having to make use of their own money to create teacher-developed
worksheets. It is worth noting that the teachers‘ salary level did not feature on the list of
financial concerns reported.
What worries me, as a teacher when using PAKEM is, for example, when a teacher has
completed writing lesson plans, and is ready to implement, they can‘t photocopy the LKS
(Student Worksheet), so there are none, and even the principal says there is no money.
Computers in schools are broken, staff are not there. This is a real constraint (T03F).
Yang saya risaukan sebagai guru ketika menjalankan PAKEM adalah, misalnya ketika guru
sudah menyelesaikan penulisan RPP, dan siap mau melaksanakannya, untuk memperbanyak
LKS (Lembar Kerja Siswa) tidak ada (tidak bisa), bahkan kepala sekolah bilang tidak ada
253
uang. Komputer di sekolah yang rusak, petugasnya yang tidak ada. Ini merupakan kendala
nyata (T03F).
If teachers have to write the worksheets out on the board, it will take some time. Teaching
aids, the curriculum demands the we must use teaching aids as instructional media.
Sometimes the school does not have teaching aids that are required for the topic. The
principal did not help and did not listen to the proposals from the teachers (T14F).
Kalau guru harus menulis LKS dipapan tulis, tentu akan memakan waktu. Alat peraga,
kurikulum menuntut harus menggunakan alat peraga sebagai media pembelajaran. Kadang-
kadang alat peraga yang sesuai dengan topik, sekolah tidak punya. Kepala sekolah tidak
berupaya dan tidak mendengarkan usulan dari guru-guru (T14F).
Teacher supervision
When asked about what support systems are in place for the implementation of active
learning, teachers identified principals and supervisors. These two positions are the closest to
teachers, and are likely to have impact on what teachers do or do not do in their classrooms.
Interestingly, when asked whether respondents have concerns about other people in relation
to the implementation of active learning, the great majority of repondents cited both
principals and supervisors (45 out of 47 each), 45 cited students , 42 cited colleagues and, 37
cited parents. Three themes emerged from analysis of the 45 responses which indicated that
the teacher had a concern with supervisors: (1) very supportive but lack of technical
leadership, (2) ineffective supervisory role, (3) teachers‘ high expectation of supervision. The
following interview excerpts illustrate teachers‘ views on the weakness of supervision with
regard to introducing active learning.
254
...they always provide supervision, in which, although in general they don‘t provide material
on PAKEM, they do strongly support PAKEM. (T01F).
…mereka selalu mengadakan supervisi yang walaupun secara umum mereka itu bukan
pemateri PAKEM tetapi mereka mendukung sekali tentang PAKEM. (T01F).
What makes me worried is that the supervisors themselves do not understand about PAKEM
(P01M).
Yang membuat saya kuatir adalah karena pengawas sendiri belum mengerti tentang PAKEM
(P01M).
Supervisors should not only comment in front of teachers about active and creative learning
(PAKEM). But demonstrating it could provide insight, knowledge, examples, and learning
strategies which are really PAKEM (T03F).
Pengawas jangan hanya berkomentar di depan guru-guru tentang pembelajaran PAKEM .
Tetapiselayaknya bisa memberi wawasan, pengetahuan, contoh-contoh, stategi pembelajaran
yang benar-benar PAKEM ( T03F).
It is not unexpected to find a variety of views among teachers when asked about the role of
principals, because these teachers came from different schools. One teacher respondent
reported on the lack of support she received from her principal, as illustrated below:
It is difficult to ask for funds to supplement the [learning] materials, such as photocopied
pictures, and other things necessary for teachers in the teaching-and-learning process (T03F).
Sulitnya minta dana untuk melengkapi bahan (pembelajaran) seperti photo kopi gambar-
gambar, dan benda benda (lain) yang sangat dibutuhkan guru dalam KBM. (T03F).
255
Another teacher reported that her principal was supportive, but in the end teachers feel that
they have to ‗take what they are given‘ (‗terpaksa menerima‘). Teachers reported that they
were unable to complete the tasks given but were not brave enough to tell the truth to the
principal. This is illustrated below. Although the following comments are not very explicit,
within the cultural context they imply that the teacher feels a lack of support.
The support, both moral and material, is enough, however occasionally the tasks given related
to our duties as a class teacher feel heavy due to the limited ability of the teacher. But teachers
just have to accept it (T08F).
Dukungan baik moril maupun material cukup, hanya kadang-kadang tugas yang diberikan
sehubungan dengan tugas sebagai guru kelas dirasa berat karena keterbatasan kemampuan
guru. Jadi guru hanya terpaksa menerima (T08F).
Teacher in-service training
Five terms were frequently used by respondents when asked about their concerns over
implementation of active learning. These are as follows: penataran, referring to traditional
training, sosialisasi - disseminating central government education policies, pelatihan – a
more contemporary style of training for teachers, imbas – referring to the obligation for
teachers who have received training to train other teachers in their cluster, and gugus – the
cluster-based training system. These terms are often used in referring to change strategies in
the context of policy implementation. Respondents generally seemed to believe that success
in implementation has a lot do to with how well the system of teacher training works. An
illustration of this view is in the following analogy:
It‘s like a car, fuel, and the engine - I think that it‘s really important that the car, the fuel, and
the engine are normal‘ (T07M).
256
Seperti mobil, bahan bakar, dan mesin – menurut saya yang sangat penting adalah adanya
mobil, adanya bahan bakar, dan adanya mesin yang normal‘ (T07M).
One of these respondents, an instructor for teacher training who was quoted above,
questioned the functioning of the in-service teacher training in the context of the new
curriculum implementation. Other respondents expressed similar attitudes, albeit ranging
from cautiously positive to downright negative in their opinion of the effectiveness of the
training. Most commented that the training teachers received so far was ineffective. The
analysis of the cluster-based in-service teachers training earlier in this chapter verifies this
perception. When asked what concerns teachers had about the implemention of active
learning, typical responses were as follows:
KKG [Teacher Cluster Working Group] activities occasionally run smoothly but hardly ever
routinely because the control of the management is still limited and consequently teachers feel
that the status is low. However, in my opinion the KKG is important to improve the quality of
education for the private teacher in particular (TO8F).
Kegiatan KKG sekali-sekali berjalan lancar tetapi hampir-hampir tidak rutin karena kontrol
dari atasan masih rendah sehingga guru merasa kurang memiliki wadah ini. Padahal
menurut saya betapa pentingnya KKG demi meningkatkan mutu pendidikan bagi pribadi
guru pada khususnya (TO8F).
The KKG activities reveal the constraints faced in teaching and learning in the classroom, but
in fact the teachers will not be open or admit that there are any constraints (T28F).
257
Kegiatan KKG adalah tempat mengungkap kendala-kendala yang dihadapi dalam PBM di
kelas, tapi dalam kenyataannya guru tidak mau terbuka atau seakan-akan tidak pernah ada
kendala (T28F).
These are constraints from the perspective of participating teachers. Constraints impacting
negatively on the effectiveness of this training were also reported by teachers who were
involved in the training as instructors.
.... Firstly, the media used to convey it [the content of the training], well it‘s like, it's just a
manual, me with my voice alone (without speakers). Secondly, I am on my own, there should
be a colleague with me ... Furthermore, the third point is that there should be something to
provide motivation, so that we maintain our enthusiasm. But our leaders (principals and
supervisors) seem to lack respect [for our program] ... for example, I conducted the
socialization from 11 am to 1 pm, and at least you would expect to be given a cup of tea or
something without us having to ask, but there was no sweet tea. So you can say that there is
not yet a positive response [to the program from leadership] (T07M).
….yang pertama media yang digunakan untuk menyampaikan itu ya seperti ini kan hanya
manual saja, saya dengan suara saya saja (tanpa ada pengeras suara), yang kedua saya
sendiri saja, harusnya ada teman pendamping…. terus yang ketiga (untuk memberikan)
motivasi (supaya) semangat (tetapi) para pemimpin kita (kepala sekolah dan pengawas) itu
seakan-akan kurang menghargai … Contohnya saya mensosialisasikan mulai dari jam 11
sampai jam 1 ya paling tidak harus di berikan satu gelas teh atau apa tanpa kita harus minta,
tapi ternyata juga tidak ada teh (manis). Berarti kan di situ kita bisa menilai bahwa belum
ada respon yang positif (T07M).
258
Another instructor reported a more basic problem concerning communication, where conflict
arose in the training between participants and some senior colleagues who attended the
training, but seemed unaware or did not want to hear the concerns:
Gosh! Over here the discussion was not yet finished, over there it was still rowdy... like, the
atmosphere became uncomfortable and the feeling was really offensive. But they seemed to
not know or to not want to know. [After] we left the room, we continued the discussion and
he used some bad language that enraged others. It was only at that one time, and what came
out then has already passed (T51 F).
Aduh, yang disini bicara belum selesai yang disana angkat (bicara), yang disini gaduh
(ramai). ..... yang begitu itu menjadi tidak enak suasananya dan sebetulnya menyinggung
perasaan. Tetapi mereka sepertinya tidak tahu atau tidak mau tahu. (Setelah) keluar dari
ruangan kita diskusi terus dia melontarkan kata-kata yang tidak enak yang memancing
kemarahan orang lain, memang pada saat itu saja, begitu keluar sudah hilang (T51 F).
Further interviews suggested that those with positive attitudes referred more to the social
function of the cluster; that is providing a forum for meeting colleagues and friends. At the
cluster meetings teachers meet and chat to discuss various matters including teaching and
learning. Many use the time for work to meet the administration requirements of teaching,
including writing lesson plans. Some 91 per cent of respondents reported they need to bring
work home, to do, in their words, ‗pekerjaan administrasi‘ or administration tasks. Some
expressed concerns, as the illustration below suggests, that this type of task was taking up too
much of their time.
Administrative work has become too time-consuming so that teachers feel they do not have
time to think about how to do more important jobs, such as how to interact with children in
the classroom so that children can be more involved in learning (T 41F).
259
Pekerjaan administrasi sudah terlalu menyita waktu guru sehingga guru merasa tidak punya
waktu lagi untuk berpikir dan melakukan pekerjaan yang lebih penting seperti bagaimana
bisa melakukan interaksi di kelas dengan anak sehingga anak bisa lebih terlibat dalam
pembelajaran (T 41F).
Interestingly, using the cluster training for working on teachers‘ administration was
mentioned as being inappropriate by a respondent with authority in the district education
office. This attitude is interesting and worth reporting, particularly because the respondent
held a leadership position and was responsible for important decisions on the budget.
Yes, it is a concern because we want to develop the role and function of the KKG itself. Yes,
because according to the reports of the supervisors, there is a tendency for the teacher
meetings at every KKG activity to be more directed towards the completion of administrative
tasks for the teaching-and-learning process; it has not yet moved towards how to solve
problems encountered when they carry out their daily tasks. Relevant to this, we plan to run a
training session to discuss the proper roles and functions for teachers and the fact that really
the KKG forum is not only about completing tasks – teachers‘ daily administrative tasks - but
should be more focused on identifying and solving problems - the problems faced by teachers
who are at the meeting – or the previous meetings (B06M).
Ya pertimbangannya karena kita mau kembangkan peran dan fungsi KKG itu sendiri. Ya
karena dari hasil laporan dari pengawas ada kecenderungan pertemuan guru dalam setiap
kegiatan KKG itu lebih mengarah ke penyelesaian administrasi untuk proses belajar
mengajar belum mengarah ke bagaimana pemecahan masalah yang ditemui pada saat
mereka melaksanakan tugas keseharian , kaitannya dengan itu maka ya kami nanti
melakukan pelatihan itu memberikan peran dan fungsi sebenarnya bahwa sesungguhnya
pertemuan guru dalam forum KKG itu bukan semata meyelesaikan tugas – tugas administrasi
260
guru sehari – hari tapi lebih memfokuskan pada penyimpangan & pemecahan masalah –
masalah yang di hadapi guru pada pertemuan – pertemuan sebelumnya (B06M).
An interview with a member of the district education office confirmed that the
model of training was a ‗cascade model‘. He reported that he represented the
district bureacracy, as a member of the province-level team of trainers, but that this
team had not yet met. He suggested that they should have met, considering the
critical role of this team in facilitating the implementation of the new curriculum,
in general, and active learning in particular. He predicted a bleak future for this
critical training team, as follows:
We were trained for one week in Makassar at the Dynasty Hotel by the National
Team so that we could disseminate to provinces through the provincial curriculum
development teams. The problem is that up until now, the 23-member provincial
team has not yet met. This team is not functioning (B03M).
Kita ditraining di Makassar satu minggu di Hotel Dinasti oleh Tim Nasional
supaya bisa diimbaskan ke propinsi melalui tim pengembang kurikulum propinsi.
Masalahnya adalah Tim di propinsi yang anggotanya 23 orang sampai sekarang
belum juga rapat. Tim ini tidak jalan (B03M).
An interview was held with the Head of the Basic Education Office at the province
in Ternate to clarify the training team situation. It was reported that this office had
other competing priorities, which they had difficulty in managing. It was also
suggested that, due to limited capacity, it was not suprizing that one or two
programs from among these priorities got overlooked. This comment seemed to be
made with little sense of unease, explaining the neglect of the province-level
261
training team.
The analysis of the training situation further down at the district, sub-district and at
the school level suggested a disconnect between all of them. None of the
respondents at the school level seemed aware of the roles played by the training
teams at both district and province levels. However, they indicated that they were
aware of the LPMP - a national level body located at the province, the role of
which is important for teachers upgrading and career development.
Three respondents also reported participating in a teacher training program
conducted by Save the Children, an international NGO in North Maluku. They
described how, for the first time, they were given a model of what active learning
looked like in action. Although the study did not include an observation of the
training, an examination of the training material suggested the use of a more
participatory approach than in the government‘s program; active learning principles
were modeled in the training. This is illustrated in the example below:
So, we were given an example how to do it, so we understand. Like a pot and a
cup, teachers just pour the tea in the cup – that is the old way. Authentic learning is
a good method the same as active learning. So we know the difference. In the old
way, when children were noisy in the class, teachers made their voice louder some
even shouted at the child; some even pinched the child or pulled their ears (S01M).
Jadi (kita) ditunjukkan caranya, jadi (kita) mengerti. Ibarat teko dan cangkir dulu
(guru) tinggal main tuang saja. Pembelajaran hakiki ini suatu cara yang bagus
sama dengan Pakem. Jadi kita tahu bedanya. Kalau dulu sistem pembelajaran
yang dulu itu paradigma lama kalau anak itu ribut dalam kelas gurunya sudah
262
mulai bentak-bentaik apakah itu dicubit perutnya, ditarik telinganya (S01M).
The use of active learning principles in the training conducted in the above
respondent‘s supervisory area was, however, not evident, although there was an
indication of some attempts to use them. The use of lengthy talks was dominant
throughout the day. It was not only the Head of the Sub-District Education Office who,
as a leader, might be expected to routinely give ‗pengarahan‘ (direction), but the
trainers as well, as illustrated below. An observation of a one-and-a-half-hour
session noted the use of lecturing technique by one instructor, whose participants
were early grade teachers.
Ladies and Gentlemen, thus is the directive of the Head of the UPTD [Sub-District
Education Office] just provided: what we have been given is an asset and we have
gained learning and we can take the lesson to further strengthen us all in applying
KTSP (School-Based Curriclum] in our schools (P01M).
‗Bapak Ibu yang saya hormati, demikian tadi pengarahan dari Bapak
kepala UPTD yang dapat kita jadikan bekal dan dapat kita pelajari dan
dapat kita ambil hikmahnya untuk lebih menguatkan kita semua dalam
menerapkan KTSP di sekolah kita (P01M).
When asked whether they had other concerns, 32 of the 47 respondents mentioned that they
were concerned about the cluster-based in-service teachers‘ training, which has been
discussed above. Eight respondents commented that the media should play bigger role, while
ten commented that the community was a concern. This is discussed in the next section.
263
Community
Respondents referred to the role of parents and community in their children‘s education. With
respect to the role of parents, respondents mentioned a range of parent attitudes and support
provided by parents. They also reported the need for increased parent involvement in their
children‘s education. This is revealed in the following illustrations:
What bothers me is the lack of support from parents, because the support they provide
determines whether or not their children are sitting in junior high school and senior high
school or they become primary school drop-outs. For example, support for buying textbooks
(P02M).
Yang saya risaukan adalah kurang dukungan ortu [orang tua] sebab mereka lebih
memberikan dukungannya apabila anak-anak mereka sudah duduk dibangku SMP dan SMA
jadi anak-anak SD dikesampingkan. Misalnya dalam dukungannya membeli buku paket
(P02M).
Parents who are less educated and from a lower economic background lack understanding
about the development of education, so that if the child is told by the teacher to perform tasks
outside [school], [the parents] push [their children] because [the children] cannot help their
parents with their work. Parents don‘t understand that PAKEM requires the students to do
step-by-step work, practical activities, and materials sometimes require costs. They object to
spending money on it. I am worried because, honestly, the children of poor parents should
receive help and the school principal should arrange this and think about it. But I worry
because the principal does not even think this far. (T03F).
Orang tua yang berpendidikan dan berekonomi rendah kurang memahami perkembangan
pendidikan, sehingga jika anak disuruh guru melaksanakan tugas-tugas luar, [orang tua]
menekan [anak-anaknya] karena meraka [kalau keluar] tidak bisa membantu pekerjaan
264
orang tuanya. Orang tua diatas tidak paham bahwa PAKEM perlu siswa banyak berunjuk
kerja, berpraktek, dan bahan-bahannya kadang-kadang memerlukan beaya. Mereka ini
merasa keberatan mengeluarkan beaya untuk itu. Saya kuatir karena sebetulnya anak-anak
yang orang tuanya miskin harus mendapat bantuan dan kepala sekolah harus mengusahakan
dan memikirkan hal ini. Tetapi saya kuatir karena kepala sekolah tidak sampai berpikir
sejauh ini. (T03F).
Concerns were expressed about the perceived gap between what teachers think community
attitudes should be with the existing attitudes in general. As illustrated in the interview below
where teachers felt that their use of resources available in the community for learning was not
yet feasible, thus constraining their effort to active learning implementation.
Sometimes the use of community facilities is not allowed, such as for instance to teach social
science [IPS], of course, we teach about IPS heritage and cultural heirlooms; we even went
to visit the palace but once we got there we were not allowed, it was prohibited. We were
told we must ask permission from the officials at the palace of the Sultanate, or later when
the children visit they will be too noisy. Want to see this and you can‘t, want to see that, you
can‘t, for sure this is a problem for teachers (T11F).
Kadang-kadang tidak diizinkan fasilitas dari pihak orang lain, contohnya IPS umpama mau
mengajarkan IPS benda-benda pusaka peninggalan, tentunya ke keraton tapi sampai disana
tidak boleh masuk dilarang. Katanya harus minta izin kepada pihak keraton kesultanan,
atau nanti kalau anak-anak masuk malah bikin ramai. Mau lihat ini gak bisa mau lihat itu
gak bisa, lah ini kan kendala untuk seorang guru (T11F).
The above illustrations demonstrate the tension between parents‘ expectation of a ‗good
education‘, defined by what they are accustomed to from when they were students and
traditional methods of learning applied, with the requirements of an active learning approach.
265
Some teachers mentioned a concern with students in relation to the implementation of active
learning.
Basically, children in my area think that this PAKEM, when the teacher applies it, they
think it‘s funny and it becomes a playful thing (TO5F).
Pada dasarnya, anak-anak di daerah saya menganggap PAKEM ini kalau dijalnkan guru
berarti mereka anggap lucu-lucu dan dijadikan bahan permainan (TO5F).
In relation to the children‘s attitude and behaviour, sometimes it is difficult to manage, and so I
feel confused to find the right way to create a learning atmosphere in the class which is joyful.
Children need to get better food.
Perhubungan dengan sikap dan perilaku anak-anak terkadang sulit dikendalikan sehingga
saya merasa bingung mencari cara yang tepat untuk membuat suasan belajar di kelas menjadi
menyenangkan. Anak perlu mendapat makanan yang lebih baik (TO6F).
Financial mismanagement
One further concern deserves mention. Although it was only raised obliquely – never
explitictly – it is clear that several of the respondents were concerned about corruption and
misappropriation of funds at the local level. The mismanagement and/or misuse of funds
resulted in delays to funding disbursement, which required the Head of the Sub-District in
Tidore to borrow money privately in order to fund activities planned in the cluster. Another
story illustrates the blurring of distinctions between public and private funds. The
Coordinator of School Supervisors in a remote region told of how, after a visit by the Head of
the District, the Head handed him some money from his pocket as he was boarding the ferry
266
to leave. The Coordinator explained that he was still unclear as to where the money came
from and why he was given it. When he was questioned in the interview whether he asked
what the money was for, he replied in a surprised tone: ‗Of course not! That would be rude
and ungrateful.‘ (S04M)
In another interview, a school supervisor (S01M) mentioned that routine funding for
supervision had ceased after two years. After repeated unanswered inquiries about this he
stopped asking. This supervisor reported that he and his colleagues previously received Rp
1.2 million per year for operational expenses. But at the time of the interview, he reported
that the funding was no longer provided. One official in the District Education Office
reportedly provided a disappointing answer: Adalah tugas pengawas untuk ke
lapangan! (You are responsible to go the field!), implying that the fund was a bonus, because
it is the job of supervisor to visit schools whether there or not there is any funding.
Researcher : Let‘s go back to the old days when there was an incentive from the centre. Could
you tell me more about how the allocation was made, what amount, and what it was for?
Respondent : Yeah ... So it was given once a year for supervisor operating expenses, to enable us
to visit and monitor the schools.
Researcher : OK! So, how much?
Respondent : The amount per supervisor was Rp 1.200.000 -
Researcher : A year, yes?
Respondent : Yes! Once a year.
Researcher : OK. So, were you told what the special allocation was for? For this, and this, not for
this – that it should be for this, for example?
Respondent: No, no example was given to the supervisors for one year, after which the money
was gone. No follow-up.
267
Researcher : That 's how many years?
Respondent: Two times, if I recall, I think it's two times, after that never again .
Researcher : Have you raised this at the office?
Respondent : Yes, we have raised it with the Office and also with the LPMP.
....
Researcher : OK! It is definitely not provided now?
Respondent : No more.
Researcher : And when asked, the answer is that the supervisor‘s task is to go to the field.
(B06M)
Researcher : Aa… kembali ke dulu, ketika ada inventive dari pusat itu bisa Bapak ceritakan
lebih lanjut tentangnya jumlahnya berapa dan alokasinya untuk apa saja?
Respondent : Ya… Jadi itu diberikan setiap tahun sekali untuk biaya operasional pengawas
yang turun memantau sekolah itu.
Researcher : Yak…!!! Jadi itu berjumlah?
Respondent : Jumlah per pengawas itu Rp. 1.200.000,-
Researcher : Setahun ya…??
Respondent : Yak…!!! Satu tahun
Researcher : Yak… Itu kata mereka ada alokasi khusus untuk ini-ini, tidak boleh untuk ini-ini.
Respondent : Ndak… ada misalnya diberikan kepada pengawas selama 1 tahun, setelah itu
hilang dia, ndak tau.
Researcher : Itu berapa tahun itu?
Respondent : Dua kali, kalo seingat saya dua kali kayaknya itu, setelah itu ndak ada lagi.
Researcher : Pernahkah hal ini disampaikan di dinas?
Respondent : Kita sudah sampaikan, nyatakan lewat dinas, maupun LPMP
....
Researcher : Yak…!!! Itu pasti sekarang sudah tidak ada?
268
Respondent : Tidak ada lagi.
Researcher : Dan ketika ditanyakan itu, dijawab sebagai karena tugas pengawas itu lapangan.
(B06M)
In another example, an official in one of the case study district offices described how the sum
of Rp 47.5 million (approximately USD 3,500 at the time) was allocated from the provincial
budget to support the cluster system. It was his job to manage the funds and he had decided
unilaterally not to distribute the money to the clusters (as was arguably intended), but rather
to hold a workshop with an estimated 147 participants at district level to ‗revitalize‘ the
cluster system. This amount of money is quite significant within the local economy. As a
result of the official‘s decision, the cluster teacher working groups would not receive a share
of these funds to support their activities. Meanwhile the practice of holding province-level
workshops, such as intended by the official, provides avenues for the individual to make extra
money through marking up costs or kick-backs from service or venue providers.
It is fair to say that the management of finances in the case study areas was not generally
transparent. Most actors did not have access to the funds they felt they needed to implement
the active learning policy; through conducting training, supervison, or resourcing their
schools and classrooms. Most were unclear about financial management: what funds were
available, how they were managed, how the decisions were made, and how the money was
spent.
Conclusion
The findings presented in Chapters Four provide evidence to address the two research
questions in the context of the case studied: (1) How do teachers translate active learning
269
methodology in the classroom? and (2) What factors impede the implementation of active
learning?
The level of confidence in these conclusions is particularly strong because of the multi-
method approach described. The key findings and answers to the questions provided here are
triangulated across data sources and case study methods. Thus, for example, the answer to the
first question was determined by directly observing classes, interviewing teachers,
interviewing bureaucrats and government officials, analyzing secondary data sources
including government reports, and conducting a survey.
In summary, the answers to the research questions are as follows.
How do teachers translate active learning methodology in the classroom?
Although the realities are different in each case, teachers in the primary schools studied in
North Maluku were not yet effectively implementing an active learning methodology in their
classrooms. In general, teachers did not understand the theoretical or practical aspects of
active learning, commonly referred to in Indonesia as PAKEM. In all classrooms observed,
teaching was traditional, didactic and teacher-directed. In the two cases observed where
efforts to implement active learning were attempted, the changes were mainly cosmetic,
consisting of changing furniture arrangements to allow for group work, and occasionally
taking children out of the classroom for activities such as observing plants in the playground.
In these isolated cases, it was also clear that these approaches, known as PAKEM, were not
yet integrated into daily practice and were implemented only on certain occasions and for
specific lessons – for example when a visiting specialist was observing the class.
270
On this basis, and on the Government‘s own admission, it is clear that Indonesia‘s policy on
active learning had not yet been implemented.
What factors impede the implementation of active learning?
The study identified a number of key factors which impede the implementation of active
learning. These were described in the introduction to this chapter as emergent themes: (1)
teacher in-service training factors, (2) school supervision factors, (3) policy alignment, and
(4) community factors. Each of these is summarized below:
Teachers and teachers‘ in-service training: Teachers recognize that they do not have the
conceptual or procedural understandings required to implement active learning. Although
many appreciate the teacher cluster in-service training system, on the basis of the study it is
evident that the training provided was inadequate. The approach is mainly an old-style lecture
format; the trainers do not fully understand the material.
School supervision: Supervision by supervisors and, to some extent, principals was found to
act as a block to change, rather than promoting the implementation of active learning. This
seems to be the result of a culture of top-down control, in which teachers are expected to
comply with regulations and supervisors are expected to ensure that compliance.
Policy alignment: The theme of policy allignment emerged more from the analysis presented
in the earlier chapters. At the level of the district, school and classroom, where national
policy is enacted, the poor allignment of policy is less obvious to the players. Nonetheless, it
was clear from the case study that the lack of allignment between policy on pedagogy,
curriculum and assessment hinders the implementation of active learning.
271
Community factors: The final broad theme which emerged from the study is the role of the
community. Parents were reportedly resistent to the implementation of active learning where
it was attempted. The students themselves were reportedly unaccustomed to active learning
approaches when applied and reacted in ways that teachers found difficult to manage.
Summary
This study set out to determine the extent to which Indonesia‘s policy on active learning has
been implemented in schools and the reasons for this.
Observations of implementation in the classroom, triangulated with results of interview,
survey and document analysis, suggest the existence of a range of adoption models. These
models, or interpretations of the new pedagogy, are determined in part by the amount of
exposure to, and the quality of, in-service training. This analysis highlights one common and
repeated theme: the wide gap that exists between central policy and local practices. In other
words, the policy on active learning has not yet been effectively implemented.
The failure of this policy implementation was associated, not only with the limited technical
capacity of teachers, but also with a range of external factors which are interconnected. Apart
from the design and delivery of the in-service teacher training program, issues related to
governance, including decision-making mechanisms, financial management, representation
and power structures are critical in the analysis. Other factors identified included the role of
parents and community, school supervision and systemic factors.
272
In the following chapter, these factors are discussed with reference to the theory on active
learning and educational change outlined in Chapter Two. The findings of the case study
described above are analysed through the three perspectives of change identified in Chapter
Two: the technical, political and cultural perspectives.
273
Chapter 5: Discussion
274
Introduction
In the previous chapter, the case study findings were presented, leading to an answer to the
two research questions posed in this study. In the present chapter, these findings are discussed
in greater depth with reference to the literature reviewed in Chapter Two and within the
broader context of the case study described in Chapter One. The aim is to propose a deeper
answer to the question as to why Indonesia‘s efforts to implement active learning have failed,
on the basis of the evidence provided by this case study.
In Chapter Two, a conceptual framework for this study was introduced. Drawing on the work
of House and McQuillan (1998), this framework consists of three broad perspectives of
reform: the technical, the political and the cultural. The main argument in this chapter is that
all three perspectives are important to an understanding of why Indonesia‘s reform program
is failing.
Experience suggests that, at best, active learning has been introduced in a piece-meal way in
Indonesia. At worst, it has only been successfully implemented when supported by external
forces, such as projects funded by international donors (Heyward & Sopantini, 2011). When
the funding is withdrawn at the end of project, the reforms are not sustained. The case study
described in this thesis supports this analysis. Although none of the schools studied in North
Maluku had received direct project assistance from a donor-funded project to introduce active
learning, most teachers had received some limited training or advice on active learning and
the then-new curriculum, in the form of traditional, old-style presentations in cluster working
groups. All felt that they had been exposed to information about the policy. None felt that
they were competent to implement it. A few teachers had attended earlier training sessions
provided by donor-funded programs: although none of the respondents could recall the detail
275
of the training, projects which operated in the region, including the CBSA program of 20
years previously and, more recently, training provided by the agency, Save the Children.
These teachers had some ideas about how to implement active learning and, in two cases,
were able to demonstrate some basic features of the policy in their practice (namely, grouping
children for discussion and taking them outdoors to observe plants). However, on their own
admission, these practices were not sustained and were not integrated into routine classroom
practice. While partly related to individual teacher factors, the argument in this chapter is that
the reason for this failure is that the practices were not supported by the broader bureaucratic,
professional or societal culture, they were not politically supported, and the technical
requirements for implementation were also absent
This reality is rarely evident in the reports of donor-funded projects, which also fund much of
the serious research into reforms in Indonesia. It is not in the interests of donor agencies,
implementing partners or government partners to report failure (Ramalingam, 2013). All
benefit from the on-going funding of reform. Consequently, many project reports and much
of the published research concentrate only on cases of successful implementation (see, for
example, Kaluge, Setiasih, Tjahjono, 2004; RTI International, 2011; Tangyong, Wahyudi,
Gardner & Hawes, 1989). The reports tend to focus on specific project outcomes in specific
locations; what are known in the ‗trade‘ as ‗success stories‘. Longer-term impact studies are
rare. Independent or critical research is rare (Cannon, 2012).
A simple answer to the question as to why pedagogical reforms are not sustained or
institutionalized, would focus on the need for greater funding, for longer-term projects, for
better and more training (all aspects considered in this study); in short, the technical
perspective: such answers suit the agenda of donors, implementing agencies and government
276
partners. While all of these answers may be true, they miss the deeper truth: Indonesia‘s
policy on active learning is imported from the developed Western nations. It is part of a broad
political agenda to promote liberal democracy, open societies and free trade in developing
nations such as Indonesia. To use David Phillips‘s and Kimberly Ochs‘s (2004) term, it is a
‗borrowed policy‘. As a borrowed or imported policy it has not grown from within the
Indonesian culture; it does not derive from Indonesian educational tradition, and, it is argued
in this chapter, it does not fit well with the political and cultural realities of the Indonesian
context. To use an analogy, active learning is like a plant that has been transplanted from
foreign soil. It does not grow well in Indonesia without continued nurturing, because it does
not belong in this context. While an educated and politically liberal elite might support a
progressive reform agenda, this is not necessarily true of the larger group of traditional
communities, such as those in rural North Maluku where this case study was conducted. As
described in this chapter, underlying views about schools and the nature of learning are
thought to hamper successful implementation, especially in remote and rural corners of
Indonesia, such as North Maluku. As the case study reported, resistance to the
implementation of active learning in the schools studied came from both within and without;
it was evident in teachers‘ understandings and attitudes, in community and parent
expectations, and in the attitudes and decisions of local authorities.
This is not to say that Indonesian teachers are incapable of implementing active learning or
that the system could not sustain it. However, it does suggest that reforms in education,
including active learning, require a much longer time-frame and should start by building on
traditional pedagogies. A staged and measured approach to implementation is more likely to
be successful than the approaches which have failed in Indonesia and, particularly, in North
Maluku. This analysis echoes Guthrie‘s (2011) argument that classroom change in the
277
developing world should focus on upgrading traditional and formal approaches to teaching
and learning rather than introducing borrowed approaches from the West.
In the following sections of this chapter, the case study findings are discussed in the broader
context of Indonesia under three headings: the technical perspective, the political perspective
and the cultural perspective. However, as will become clear in the discussion, these three
perspectives are closely interlinked; each influences, and each is an outcome of, the others.
The important point is that a deep understanding of change and the failure of reform in
Indonesia requires an understanding of these three perspectives. With some exceptions, (see,
for example Bjork, 2005), research has tended to focus on the technical perspective and has
ignored the deeper political and cultural perspectives.
The technical perspective
The technical is perhaps the most easily observed of the three perspectives. Technical
capacity is a relevant factor at all levels, from the national level through to the level of the
individual teacher in the classroom. Active learning, especially when put in the context of
competency-based and school-based curricula (KTSP), is an approach which assumes a high
level of professional competence for teachers, principals, teacher trainers and within the
system as a whole.
The 2010 McKinsey report, How the world‘s most improved education systems keep getting
better (Mourshed, Chijioke & Barber, 2010), categorized education systems as poor, fair,
good and great. According to the indicators used in this report, Indonesia‘s system could be
described as poor or, in some respects, fair. According to the findings of the study, in order to
improve from poor to fair, Indonesia‘s system should be providing teachers with strong
278
support and scripted lessons: ―...the interventions in this stage focus on supporting students in
achieving the literacy and math basics: this requires providing scaffolding for low-skill
teachers, fulfilling all basic student needs, and bringing all the schools in the system up to a
minimum quality threshold‖ (Mourshed, Chijioke & Barber, 2010, p. 20). Instead, under the
policies of school-based management, school-based curriculum and active learning, teachers
are expected to exercise considerable professional independence, to adopt a progressive
active learning pedagogy, to design school-based curricula, and to interpret an active learning
policy in lessons and classroom practices tailored to the specific needs of individuals and
groups of children, in order to achieve nationally mandated basic competencies.
The findings of the case study show clearly that teachers are not in fact doing anything like
this. What they are doing is relying on formulaic approaches to lesson planning – with the
main aims of meeting administrative requirements and getting children to pass national
examinations. They teach whole-class lessons, using a traditional, teacher-directed, chalk-
and-talk approach and relying on published text books as props, when available.
The National Ministry‘s main strategy to implement the policy on active learning has been to
use a ‗cascade training‘ model (Griffin, 1999; Leu, 2004); facilitators from the province-
level LPMP training centres are supposed to give leadership and direction, but it is assumed
that professional development and cluster-based training will provide teachers with the
necessary technical and conceptual understandings and pedagogical skills. The case study
reported that the limited training given to teachers in the clusters studied had not succeeded in
developing the understandings and skills required for active learning. As described in Chapter
Two, effective professional development is characterized by: (1) a strong focus on both
content and pedogogy; (2) use of active learning principles, and (3) being part of a coherent,
279
long-term plan. The following structural features are also identified as critical: (1) adequate
duration, (2) adequate funding and resourcing, (3) well-trained trainers, and (4) participation
of the teachers as partners in the process (Darling-Hammond & McLaughlin, 1995; Day,
2000; Holmes, Futrell, Christie, & Cushman, 1995; Pierce & Hunsaker, 1996; Villages-
Reimers & Reimers,1996; Villegas-Reimers, 2003). The reality of the training provided
through the school cluster system is very different. The training in North Maluku consisted of
one-off events, designed without the broad participation of the teachers, without follow-up,
based on presentation and lectures, and did not provide a good model of active learning.
This is a technical failure, resulting from low capacity within the system to plan, fund,
implement and evaluate in-service training. In part it reflects a lack of understanding among
the national policy makers and planners of the economic and technical realities of
implementation. Although the budget allocation for education has increased, as reported in
the case study, the policy development and implementation approach was top-down and
bureaucracy-driven. It did not acknowledge the realities of schools and teachers, especially
those in remote places. The geographical isolation of the districts studied makes
implementation more difficult and financially costly.
At the national level, technical constraints are evident through the apparent lack of
professional and financial capacities of LPMP as a national institution charged with various
tasks ultimately aimed to strengthen teacher professional growth. This lack of capacity was
readily acknowledged by the Head of LPMP in North Maluku and the Head of the Education
Resource Development division (Pengembangan Sumber Daya Pendidikan or PSDP) in the
Provincial Education Office, as follows:
280
The major constraint arises from the weakness of human resources. Staff members are
still inexperienced and there is no proper formulation for the funding calculation.
Geographical constraints including the number and spread of schools in North Maluku are
very real where schools are scattered in various corners, most of which are very difficult
to access by vehicle. (B05M)
Kendala besar bersumber dari lemahnya sumber daya manusia. Staff yang masih belum
berpengalaman dan kurang adanya formulasi tepat terhadap penghitungan pendanaan.
Kendala geografis yang berupa tersebarnya sekolah di Maluku Utara sangat nyata
dimana sekolah-sekolah tersebar di berbagai pelosok yang kebanyakan sangat susah
dijangkau dengan kendaraan. (B05M)
Where it operates well, the cluster system has reportedly achieved good results (MacNeil,
2004), but the case study reported in the previous chapter does not demonstrate this. It shows
that clusters are managed with very limited guidance, no effective training and no technical
inputs.
The evaluation of past projects aimed at improving the quality of teaching and learning and
effective management of Indonesian schools paints a rather bleak historical picture (Bjork,
2003; Cannon, 2001, 2009; Cannon & Arliyanti, 2008; Ministry of National Education,
2007b; Nielsen, 1998; Semiawan, 2003; World Bank, in press). If the effectiveness of the
cluster system as a professional development and school improvement tool is measured by
improved student outcomes, the results have been disappointing. Internal evaluations of the
Active Learning and Professional Support (ALPS or better known as CBSA) project and the
Primary Education Quality Improvement Project (PEQIP) suggest that changes in classroom
practices as a result of project intervention at best reached only a surface level (Malcolm,
281
McLean, Tanuputra, & Harlen, 2001; Van Der Werf, Creemers, De Jong & Klaver, 2000).
Sustainability is often highlighted as an issue and project-supported change is frequently not
sustained beyond the life of the project (Cannon & Arlianti, 2008).
At the province and district levels, obstacles to the implementation of active learning through
the cluster system have both technical and political aspects. These can be detected from the
views of those sitting in leadership positions. The technical aspect refers to matters
influencing the understanding of the policy and its implementation. Strong technical
understanding normally means understanding how the job is to be done. This technical
understanding, coupled with an understanding of the context of the districts, influences the
education programming in each district. The political aspect refers to subtle matters such as
competing interests, who holds power, and who asserts authority.
From a technical perspective, implementation is hampered by a lack of understanding among
local education leaders and facilitators of effective forms of teacher professional
development, and the theory and practice of active learning. This creates a tension in the
system as it often appears that teachers better understand the practical issues of classroom
practice, while the authority rests with non-teachers. As a result, and partly because of the
government culture of bureaucratic red tape and top-down policy, education leaders and
school supervisors typically see their role as ensuring compliance with regulations rather than
fostering the professionalism required for school-based curricula and active learning. These
issues underscore the complex mix of political, cultural and technical perspectives that
explains the failure of policy implementation.
282
At the classroom level, it seems that the teachers in these schools follow a script - and indeed
they do follow the same scripts as indicated in the planning documents that they are obliged
to use. Although the questions these teachers will ask learners have not always been planned
ahead of time, the answers are already known. Each question has either a correct or incorrect
answer; the sole purpose of the question and answer exchange is to test learners‘ rote
knowledge. The technical understanding and skills required for implementing active learning
are lacking.
The technical capacity of teachers to implement child-centred, active learning approaches is
determined initially by what they understand and believe. Other than possessing knowledge
on subject matter and classroom management, these teachers need to develop good practice:
they need to have an understanding of pedagogy that is multi-dimensional and which entails
an understanding about children and how they learn (Alexander, 2000; Gipps &
MacGilchrist, 1999). It is further argued that, to become more effective, teachers need to
develop a much more sophisticated understanding about learning and the impact that their
beliefs and attitudes about learning and learners can have on what – and how – they teach in
the classroom. As Michael Fullan (1991) put it, school improvement, and therefore pupil
improvement, ‗...depends on what teachers do and think. It's as simple and as complex as that'
(p. 117). The survey and interviews reported in Chapter Four explored what it is that
influences, often implicitly, what teachers think, and therefore do, in their everyday
interactions with children.
The teachers surveyed had mixed views. While some regarded children as born either
intelligent or not, others saw the environment as more influential. The majority believed that
children learn best by watching an adult and copying. It is clear that teachers are not
283
confident to implement active learning. They don‘t yet understand the approach, either
conceptually or technically. By their own admission they lack the knowledge and skills
required. The same is true of most school principals, local officials and school supervisors.
The political perspective
Politics is essentially the exercise of power (Collins, 2009). Within the societal and
bureaucratic cultures of Indonesia, the source of power is at the top: power is exercised in a
top-down way. As discussed in Chapter Two, a deep culture of respect for authority is
overlaid on societal and religious cultures that reinforce a patriarchal system; authority and
seniority are determined largely by age and gender (Clarke, 2001, 2003; Dorfman & House,
2004; Hallinger, 2005; Hofstede, 1991; Magnis-Suseno, 1997). This reinforces the top-down
approach in government and the education system. Within this cultural framework, power
rests with senior officials in a hierarchical system starting with the President and the Minister
for Education at the top of the pyramid and stepping down through the layers of bureaucracy
at national, provincial, district and sub-district levels to the sub-district head, school
supervisors, principals and, finally, teachers at the bottom of the hierarchy (Bjork, 2005;
Clarke, 2001, 2003; French, Pidada & Victor, 2005). Within this political system, the
concepts of school-based management, school-based curriculum and active, child-centred
learning, are an anomaly. While the theory may be espoused at each level of the system, in
reality individuals at each level defer to the authority of those above – regardless of technical
capacity or perceived local need and context. At the same time, the cultural values of respect
for authority and group conformity typically produce a passive and compliant teaching force,
in which teacher decision-making is determined more by fear of sanctions and desire to
comply and conform, than it is by any sense of creative problem-solving, innovation or
professional independence (Bjork, 2005).
284
The flow of funds to support teacher training, schools and learning in classrooms follows a
similar pattern. A culture of corruption (Hendri, 2013) and the blurring of distinctions
between private and public resources at local levels, means that funds intended for use in
clusters, schools and classrooms are frequently diminished or gone altogether before they
reach the target. (Frequent reports in the Indonesian media, together with comments made by
several respondents in the case study and discussed in Chapter Four, provide evidence for this
proposition. Funds for suprvision and cluster training were reportedly often late or reduced or
missing, requiring local officials to borrow money privately or use their own resources to
fund activities.) The recently introduced national BOS funding scheme was, at the time of
the study, beginning to change this paradigm. Funds are provided by the national government
directly to schools on a per-capita funding formula basis. This, for the first time, gives
schools a significant budget with which to plan and implement programs to meet school-
based objectives and perceived needs. However, there was evidence of attempts to subvert
this mechanism by, for example, local Education Office officials issuing instructions to
schools requiring them to allocate funds for particular purposes or to purchase books or other
materials from approved suppliers, presumably at marked-up prices. (Again, frequent reports
in the Indonesian media, and reports from informants discussed in Chapter Four, support
this.)
The inadequacy of funding to cover relevant costs including for travel to enable teachers to
attend cluster training activities and school supervisors to visit schools is clear. Reportedly
the District Education Office should have used a different formula to determine the amount of
funds for travel. The current formula provided a budget of Rp 10 million per year to cover
transport and related costs to remote clusters, especially where the core and satellite schools
285
were located in geographical contexts are very difficult to reach by land. However, this was
not a regular budgetary item, but a one-off payment from the national government and only a
few clusters received it. Isolation is a real problem. For example to get to the core school in
the SDI cluster, teachers from satellite schools had to travel in ketinting (wooden canoes)
costing around Rp 100,000 for a return trip. Although it was difficult to verify, a number of
reports suggested that misappropriation of funds was a common problem. (This issue was
discussed in the case study in Chapter Four.)
As suggested by the national level bureaucrat interviewed, in addition to funding, leadership
is also required as a ‗driving force‘ for policy implementation and reform of classroom
practice from other players: principals (especially the head of the cluster), subject teacher
facilitators (guru pemandu) and other teachers. Without the support of these, clusters do not
function effectively, and teachers do not have the opportunity to acquire the necessary
understandings and skills.
Whilst the cluster approach supports a bottom-up model of teacher development with
programs designed around the identified professional needs of teachers, the political reality
suggests that authority and power rests primarily with district and sub-district officials,
school supervisors and principals. If these administrators and officials are left out of the
equation, the risk is that they will block change and reform. On the other hand, if they are
made partners and choose to champion reform, their authority will carry much weight. One of
the most important issues which emerged from the study is the importance of leadership for
the effectiveness of the cluster system and to support change and policy implementation.
Based on the evidence of the case study, school supervisors and other key personnel are keen
to support professional development through the cluster system. The problem, at this level, is
286
a lack of political will (political rhetoric is not supported by financial commitment)
compounded by a lack of technical understanding (training that is provided is ineffective).
Interviews with each of the heads of Basic Education Sections in the District Education
Offices revealed different pictures with regard to the priorities in the three districts visited.
Compared with the two other districts, the District of South Halmahera appeared to place
higher priority on teacher development. The other two districts seemed to be more interested
on prioritizing access, by allocating a greater budget for infrastructure development.
A related political issue is the relationship between the education office (Dinas Pendidikan)
at the district level and the province-level teacher centres (LPMP). It was apparent that
communication was limited. The LPMP acts as an arm of central government. It channels
funding to clusters and plans and implements training programs with little or no consultation
with provincial or district education offices or with schools and teachers. Similarly,
coordination between districts and the provinces appeared to be lacking. This was clear, for
example, in the discussion of the role of the provincial training team, discussed in Chapter
Four.
At the school level, political issues include the power relationships between teachers and
principals and between principals, sub-district heads and school supervisors. The illustrative
story about Sekolah Jaya included later in this chapter illustrates well this power relationship
and how it can act to hinder change and stop policy reform. Once again, the top-down power
relationship dominates.
287
Community members may also exercise informal power through traditional structures but this
was not evident in the study. Formal structures for community participation include the newly
established school committees and district level school boards. However, these bodies
appeared to act mainly as a rubber stamp to the school principals and district education
offices. School committee heads were mainly appointed by the school principal and are often
former teachers or others who are likely to support the principal. The same is true of the
district education boards which generally are headed by retired district education office heads
or other retired officials.
In the case study schools, a range of models was evident for teacher involvement in decision-
making. Most schools did hold routine teacher meetings and teachers generally felt that they
had a say in school management, but it was mostly about ‗small‘ things and was often not
followed with action.
One final political aspect deserves mention. At the highest level, as discussed in Chapter
Two, global politics plays a highly significant role (Dryzek, 1996; Tabulawa 2003). The
policy of active learning, along with other associated ‗progressive‘ policies discussed, is a
product of the relationship between the Indonesian Government and foreign donors. It
represents part of a broad attempt to promote liberal democracy and an open society (Peet,
1991; Tabulawa 2003). More specifically, the policy of active learning derives from the
policies and practices in developed nations such as Australia, the UK and the USA. It has
been imported into the Indonesian context through foreign donor-funded projects such as
CBSA, CLCC and MBE. While it has been enthusiastically endorsed by senior officials and
government advisors in the national Ministry, it is not a policy based on the assessment of
needs or aspirations of local actors, including the teachers and local education leaders in
288
North Maluku. Given the lack of technical understanding at all levels of the system, the lack
of financial support and the lack of training, is is unsurprizing that the policy has not been
implemented.
The cultural perspective
Relevant cultural features include aspects of both the societal culture and institutional culture
of teachers and the government education system. Specifically, the traditional, collectivist,
cultures observed in North Maluku assume a hierarchical system of authority and value group
conformity (Hallinger, 2005; Hofstede and Hofstede, 2005) and traditional notions of
teaching and learning (Dardjowidjojo, 2001; Guthrie, 2011; Hallinger, 2005; Magnis Suseno,
1997; Tabulawa, 1997). These cultural norms do not encourage individual creativity,
innovation or active learning, which could threaten the traditional hierarchy and social
harmony (Bjork, 2005; Dardjowidjojo, 2001).
The institutional culture of teachers places higher value on loyalty and obedience to the
government through their superiors than aspiring to improve the lives of their students in the
school (see Bjork, 2005). In the case study, this could be clearly seen in several different
ways. Several typical examples were: (1) the content of the speech given by the head of a
sub-district education office, the manner of delivery, and the extended use of time to
complete the speech; (2) the response solicited from the teachers listening to the speech; and
(3) the associated ritual practiced and symbols used throughout the schools and education
offices.
In one of the teacher cluster meetings observed, matters of housekeeping which could have
been completed in, perhaps, five minutes, took one hour. This time was spent on routine and
289
rituals, including praying and introductory speeches to open the event. The head of the sub-
district education office and a school supervisor both gave speeches. The content was
presented orally, without any supportive written material. The speeches focused on the need
for change and curriculum in general and, in particular, on the historical context of the
Indonesian primary curriculum and pedagogy, and the new primary curriculum, which was to
be adopted in every primary school in Indonesia. Interestingly, when questions were asked of
three participant teachers in an interview, two of them responded positively and favourably to
these long speeches. Only one teacher expressed annoyance and clearly indicated that the
long speeches were a boring, but frequently recurring, ritual. This teacher clearly stated his
disapproval of the content and the way the speeches were delivered. However, he also
mentioned his suspicion that most teachers were of the opinion that there were no issues to be
resolved arising from this approach or content.
This reflects a cultural expectation that, as a leader, whenever an occasion arises (and there
are many), the head of the sub-district should give what could be regarded as a long and
preachy speech. (See, for example, Dardjowidjojo, 2001; Magnis-Suseno, 1997; Mulder,
1994; or Noesjirwan, 1978, for discussion of attitudes towards authority in Indonesian
societies.) Similarly it is expected that, as followers, the teachers and principals in this room
will sit quietly and still in their chairs and listen through until the completion of the speech.
Many fidgeted and appeared uncomfortably hot, with perspiration evident, but later indicated
not having any issues whatsoever regarding the speech. No one interrupted the long speech.
The values and cultural assumptions which underlie the school reforms in societies where the
education reforms originate (including Australia, the UK and USA) differ from those in
Indonesia and, specifically, the local cultural norms in North Maluku. (See Table 2.1 in
290
Chapter Two for a comparison of cultural contexts in Indonesia and the UK at the time when
active learning was first introduced in the two countries.) At the deepest level, community
and teacher understandings about the nature of knowledge, of learning and of the proper roles
of teacher and student are fundamentally different. As described in Chapter Two, in the
traditional cultures of Indonesia knowledge is regarded as received. It is seen as a commodity
which is held by learned people such as teachers and religious leaders and acquired through
transmission by learners such as school children (Dardjowidjojo, 2001; Guthrie, 2011;
Magnis-Suseno, 1997). Within this traditional Indonesian conceptual framework, teaching
and learning is seen as a process of giving and taking. The role of the teacher is to ‗deliver‘
the knowledge and test that it has been received. The role of the learner is to pay attention to
the teacher and passively absorb the knowledge delivered. The main purpose of this
transaction is for the learner to acquire knowledge in the form of facts which may be recalled
and basic skills which may be demonstrated. Although it is not quite as simple as this, these
cultural assumptions were evident in the case study and were confirmed in the interviews and
observations. There was also evidence of a shift in thinking with teachers acknowledging the
role of nurture verses nature in determining success in learning. As described in Chapter
Four, teachers have mixed views about the extent to which intelligence is innate. The data
from the survey were, on the surface, inconsistent. Responses to some items suggested a
traditional view of children‘s intelligence being largely inherited, while responses to other
items suggested a more balanced view between nature and nurture. This suggests that
teachers were beginning to see nurture as more important and thus the role of the teacher as
more important in determining a child‘s learning performance.
These traditional assumptions differ from those underlying the theory and practice of active
learning. In the professional and broader cultures of developed western nations, where active
291
learning pedagogy originates, knowledge is seen as something acquired or ‗constructed‘ by
the learner from prior learning, trial and error and individual effort. In this conceptual
framework, the role of the teacher is to guide the learner, to create a ‗learning environment‘
and provide ‗learning experiences‘ for students to enable them to construct the desired
knowledge, practice the target skills and develop basic competencies – and then to test the
extent to which those knowledge and skills have been acquired. In the traditional Indonesian
framework, lessons are teacher-directed. In the contemporary western context, lessons are
child-centred. In the former the mode of learning is ‗passive‘ and in the latter, ‗active‘
(Guthrie, 2011; Hallinger, 2005). In the classes observed, as reported in Chapter Four, a total
of 85 per cent of interactions consisted of teachers asking questions and children responding.
The learning was teacher-centred. The role of the children was passive. The classrooms were
generally bare, desks and chairs were set out in traditional rows facing the blackboard at the
front. Children generally responded to questions in chorus fashion. (See, for example, Cuban
1984, for analysis of traditional teaching approaches.)
The case of Sekolah Jaya
In order to sum up and illustrate the way in which the three perspectives of change – the
technical, political and cultural – interact and enact to obstruct the implementation of the
national reform policy, this section presents one typical and exemplary story. The story is of
an attempt to introduce competency-based curriculum in the school Sekolah Jaya illustrating
the way in which limited technical understanding, a traditional political hierarchy at the local
level, and cultures of collectivism and high power distance can stifle innovation (see
Dorfman & House, 2004; Hofstede, 1991; Hofstede & Hofstede, 2005 discussed in Chapter
Two). The story illustrates how social harmony was prioiritized over individual school
creativity in this case. This school, Sekolah Jaya, located in the sub-district of Tidore
292
conducted a trial to adopt active learning and the new competency-based curriculum.
However, the trial was aborted by a school supervisor. When asked why he did what he did,
the answer he gave suggests the principle of social harmony. In his words:
Allowing the school to keep using the new curriculum meant that the school was using a
different curriculum [than the rest of the schools in the sub-district] and this runs against
the principle that we should be doing the same thing - so we upheld the principle of
togetherness. (S02M)
Mengijinkan sekolah untuk berlanjut memakai kurikulum baru berarti sekolah itu akan
memakai kurikulum yang beda (dari yang dipakai sekolah lain di Kecamatan) dan hal ini
tidak sesuai dengan kebiasaan bahwa kita semua harus melakukan hal yang sama – kan
kita harus selalu bersama. (S02M)
In this case, individual creativity at the school level was seen as a threat to social harmony
and the political hierarchy.
The fact that similar topics were brought up by several different respondents during separate
interviews provides good evidence for the veracity of the respondents‘ accounts and the
accuracy of their perceptions. Furthermore, verification of the accounts with all actors
involved shows that when combined, the different reports were consistent. These various
accounts illustrate technical, political and economic obstacles to reform. They also highlight a
set of deeper cultural constraints, and these accord with the literature discussed in Chapter
Two (e.g., Dorfman & House, 2004; Hofstede, 1991; Hofstede & Hofstede, 2005). The
illustration below describes how a political hierarchy, typical of collectivist societies, plays a
critical part in determining how long a reform initiative lives; in this account it lived for a
very short time. Central to the behaviours of all involved in these accounts is the notion of
293
autonomy as exercised by a school principal when responding to central policy. A revealing
comment, which was not atypical, heard in the course of the case study was as follows: ‗Ya,
otonomi tapi harus ada komando!‘ ‘Yes, autonomy but there has to be a commander!‘
This account describes the experience of two principals and two supervisors as they were
dealing with an initiative of the school, Sekolah Jaya, which decided to run a ‗trial‘ of the
new draft Competency Based Curriculum (KBK), which incorporated the pedagogical
approach of active learning. Believing that authority over the actual design and
implementation of KBK was concentrated at the school level, and supported by a competent
colleague (the Principal of the neighbouring Sekolah Merdeka), the Principal of Sekolah Jaya
decided to adopt the 2004 KBK in the beginning of academic year of 2006/2007. Convinced
that, under the national policies of school-based management (MBS) and school-based
curriculum (KTSP), autonomy had been devolved to school and, assisted by his colleague,
the Principal embarked on a series of school-based, in-service teacher training activities
focussing on curriculum development.
Whilst this training program was proceeding, teachers no longer used the old 1994
curriculum and instead referred their teaching programs to KBK. In practice, the ‗trial‘ of
KBK involved the purchase of KBK-labelled textbooks by the schools and the usage of
various KBK teaching references. While other schools in the district continued to use the
earlier 1994 curriculum, teachers in Sekolah Jaya abandoned it and began to use KBK
instead.
In the local context, Sekolah Jaya was regarded as a ‗favourite school‘, the most reputable
school in the district. The parent population consisted mainly of public servants (87%) with
294
the remainder a mix of farmers and members of the business community. Some 50% of
teachers had completed further study and earned teaching degrees. A pass rate of 100% for
the Grade Six national examinations over the past five years added to the school‘s reputation.
In this context and with a personal conviction based on the autonomy afforded to the school
by the nationally mandated School-Based Curriculum (KTSP) policy and its predecessor, the
draft national Competency Based Curriculum (KBK), the Principal of Sekolah Jaya felt that
he had all the ammunition he needed to go ahead with trialling the new curriculum. However,
this trial had to be aborted. Approaching the sixth month of the trial, when the school
examination was about to take place, a conflict arose with the school supervisor. This conflict
ended the initiative of the school; an event which a year later was described as pelajaran
berharga (an important lesson) for reform by one of the actors; the Principal of Sekolah Jaya.
On recalling the initial process of KBK trial in Sekolah Jaya, the Principal of Sekolah
Merdeka, who was also a school parent, commented as follows: ―I have a good relationship
with Pak A and we talk about new things including KBK. There is not yet any school in
Maluku which has trialled KBK, why doesn‘t Sekolah Jaya try it? I suggested that he trial
KBK and I told him I was ready to give him support. I am ready to introduce the new
curriculum, its enactment in class, the syllabus, and so on.‖
An interview with the Principal of Sekolah Jaya verified and drew a consistent picture of the
account: ―KBK entails school autonomy, does it not? I decided to trial KBK because this is a
good initiative and it will be good for the school. For the improvement of the school.‖
On recalling the conflict, and how school supervisors used a routine meeting of principals to
vent their anger over the initiative, the Principal of Sekolah Merdeka reported: ―With KBK
295
teachers have the right to develop students‘ assessment. The teachers had developed their
own test items for use. When the time came for the test to be administered, because they had
already developed their own test, Sekolah Jaya no longer needed the test developed in the
sub-district. The supervisor was angry.‖
The Principal of Sekolah Jaya was also angry, as was apparent in his tone of voice, when he
was interviewed to verify the account: ―On the trial of KBK in my school, their [the
supervisors‘] response [to my query about school autonomy] does not make any sense. They
created the impression that I did it without coordinating with them.‖
In a separate interview, the school supervisor (pengawas) explained his position: ―Indeed, it
was me who prohibited [the continuation of the initiative]. Autonomy is fine but you should
still wait for [superior] instruction.‖
In addition to routine jobs, this year we've got a big job, associated with SBC [school-based
curriculum], which has to be implemented in all schools in the Tidore islands. Before there
was SBC, in our region in Tidore, all schools used the 1994 Curriculum. I heard that there is
one school, which is not in my target area, which tried to use the 2004 Curriculum, the
competency-based curriculum, but the experiment was not continued because it was not
authorized by his supervisor. This school was not my target, but was mentored by another
supervisor. (S01M)
Selain pekerjaan-pekerjaan rutin, tahun ini kami punya pekerjaan besar, terkait dengan
KTSP yang harus dilaksanakan di semua sekolah di wilayah Kota Tidore Kepualauan.
Sebelum ada KTSP, di wilayah kami di Kota Tidore, semua sekolah menggunakan kurikulum
1994. Saya mendengar bahwa ada satu sekolah, yang bukan di wilayah binaan saya yang
mencoba menggunakan kurikulum 2004, yaitu kurikulum berbasis kompetensi, tetapi
296
percobaan itu tidak lanjut karena tidak diijinkan oleh pengawasnya. Sekolah itu bukan
binaan saya, tetapi dibina oleh pengawas lain. (S01M)
This illustration highlights how the newly gained power was exercised by the two principals,
and in particular the Principal and teachers of Sekolah Jaya. They were developing a sense of
autonomy as decision makers and curriculum developers. This initiative was a form of
experiential autonomy, exercised in a context where external constraints are evident in
various forms, including the attitudes and behaviour of the school supervisory team. On the
part of principal, his initiative in conducting the trial demanded courage and set him apart
from his colleagues. At the time, of 103 schools in the entire district, this was the only school
which decided to conduct the trial. It is reasonable to assume that by not conducting the trial
in their schools, most school principals behaved according to the cultural expectations of a
hierarchical society; they would wait for their superior‘s instruction, and a collectivist
society; they would act as a group. In this local context, the instruction of school supervisors
is normally based on the unanimous decision of the group (mufakat). See the discussion of
this concept in Chapter Two (Mulder, 1994).
The school supervisor, with the support of the local educational leadership team, vetoed the
trial although it was consistent with the national reform policy and regulations. Why did this
happen? The reasons are varied. From a technical perspective, it is clear that the supervisor
did not understand or approve of the new approaches to school-based curriculum and active
learning. The national cascade training approach, through the province-level LPMP and
school cluster system had succeeded in developing new understandings among some
practitioners, particularly the Principal of Sekolah Jaya and his colleagues, but had failed to
develop shared understandings in the wider educational community and particularly among
297
school supervisors. There was no technical support within the system at the local level for
this reform.
At the national level, the failure of this reform effort can be seen to result from
inconsistencies and ambiguities in the policy framework. The local actors, in this case the
principals, teachers and school supervisors, were confused about the policy, what it entitled
them to do, and what was expected of them in implementing it. The national Competency-
Based Curriculum (KBK) had not yet been formally adopted or rejected by the national
Ministry. Early dissemination efforts had withered. The newer concept of school-based
curriculum (KTSP) had recently been introduced, but was not yet well understood.
Meanwhile, education districts, schools and individual supervisors, principals, teachers, and
students were all judged primarily on the success of students in nationally mandated
examinations. School-based assessment, using portfolios and teacher tests, was part of the
reform embedded in KBK, but was inconsistent with the on-going national examination
system. Experiments with active learning were seen by the supervisors as likely to have a
negative impact on examination results.
Teachers also reported that parents did not approve of efforts to introduce active learning.
The teachers, themselves, did not understand the new approach well enough to feel confident
in implementing it or explaining it to parents. From a political perspective, the supervisor and
leadership team felt threatened by the trial. They clearly felt that their legitimate authority
was under threat, that the trial was not in the interests of the children, the schools or the
system, and that firm action to prevent this was required. The supervisor believed that what
he had done was justified under what he called procedural bureaucracy. As a superior, the
supervisor expected not to be challenged by his subordinate. The fact that the Principal of
298
Sekolah Jaya conducted the trial posed a serious challenge to his authority in particular and
the authority of the team of supervisors in general. The fact that the supervisory team decided
to vent their anger in a public meeting to single out Sekolah Jaya principal confirmed this.
A year later, the principal recalled the meeting and commented as follows: ―Yes, they
accused me of being rebellious.‖
From these accounts it is clear that autonomy as entailed in the new curriculum, and
supported by the various regulations outlined in Chapter One, represented a foreign idea and,
as such, faced great cultural challenge when being exercised. These accounts also suggest
that exceptions to these cultural rules and challenges to the local political hierarchy are
possible. In this case, an individual, the Sekolah Jaya Principal, chose to break the rules by
behaving courageously enough and take an initiative and follow through regardless of how
short-lived his effort to conduct the trial of the new curriculum in his school would be.
From a cultural perspective, the values underlying the behaviour of various actors in
responding at the local level to central policy, as shown in this illustrative story, show that
there is a clash of values between culture and reform. The most relevant societal values
referred to here are: (1) harmony and consensus in society as ultimate goals (Hofstede &
Hofstede, 2005) and (2) mufakat or subordination of the individual to the common unanimous
decision (Mulder, 1994). Although more difficult to verify, it can also be argued that the
cultural values and beliefs which underlie the pedagogical approach are inconsistent with the
values and beliefs held by local actors: school supervisors, teachers, parents and students.
299
On this basis of this story, it is reasonable to expect that the reform has potential to be
implemented successfully. The trial was based on the principal‘s technical understanding, had
been well designed and had political support within the school. What is important to bear in
mind is the fact that if autonomy and active learning are to be successfully adopted, broader
technical, political and cultural challenges must first be resolved within the system. It is
therefore important to study how individuals such as the Principal of Sekolah Jaya managed
to act individually in a collectivist culture such as that demonstrated by the supervisory team
of the school community in the sub-district of Tidore, North Maluku.
Conclusion
This chapter has explored the implementation of a policy on active learning and the influence
of technical, political and cultural factors on the responses of implementing actors. This
analysis has yielded insights into the two propositions long known in the literature on change
and implementation of education innovation: (1) implementation of reform policy is complex
(Considine, 1994; Fullan, 2001; Taylor, Rizvi, Lingard & Henry, 1997), and (2) change is not
an event but a process (Ainscow, Hargreaves & Hopkins, 1995; Fink & Stoll, 1998; Fullan,
1991). It has also highlighted the complex interplay between three perspectives of change:
technical, political and cultural.
The key finding of this study is that the implementation of reforms in classroom practice in
this case has largely failed at the district and school levels, due to the influence of a range of
technical, political and cultural factors.
An exemplary story was provided to illustrate the way in which technical, political and
cultural factors can obstruct policy implementation. The story of an attempt to introduce the
300
competency-based curriculum in the school, Sekolah Jaya, illustrates clearly the effect that a
conflicting and ambiguous policy framework, technical failure, a hierarchical political
system, collectivism and high power distance (Hofstede, 1991) can have on stifling
innovation. Deeper cultural constraints have been suggested, including the traditional
assumptions about knowledge, teaching and learning. However, it was difficult to confirm the
role of these in the case study. Further research is required to fully understand the role of
traditional cultural values and the challenges of implementing foreign educational concepts,
such as active learning.
It is tempting to conclude that Indonesia‘s reforms policies, borrowing Elmore‘s (1997)
words, ―…tinker around the edges of the core – fiddling with institutional arrangement and
superficial structural features of the system – without ever influencing what kind of teaching
and learning students are actually exposed to in the classroom and schools‖ (p. 299). A more
disquieting question is whether, given the centrality of the reforms to school improvement in
Indonesia, the country can afford to continue approaching education reform in the same way.
Unless policy makers allow for the technical, political and cultural realities of agents at the
level of classroom, school and district, their reform policies are unlikely to be implemented
and the pattern of failed reform in Indonesia‘s education system is likely to be repeated.
301
Chapter 6: Conclusions
302
Introduction
Since the 1970s Indonesia has been attempting to implement an active learning approach in
its schools. Since the 1990s this effort has been part of a national curriculum policy. Over the
last 35 years a series of international donor-funded projects has supported the effort to
implement active learning. This includes ALPS (British Council), PEQIP, SEQIP, BEP
(World Bank), CLCC, MGPBE (UNICEF-UNESCO), NTT PEP, AIBEP, LAPIS, SSQ
(AusAID), REDIP (JICA), MBE, DBE, and PRIORITAS (USAID). Note that this list is not
exhaustive and does not include all bilateral or multilateral projects. International non-
government organizations, such as PLAN International, Save the Children, World Vision and
CARE International, have also implemented many projects to help implement active learning.
(See Cannon and Arlianti‘s Review of Education Development Models for Increasing Access
to Quality Basic Education in Indonesia (2008) for an overview of many of these projects.)
Notwithstanding all of this effort at reform, the gap between policy and practice remains
wide. Most schools and classrooms remain little changed. There is a wide range of teaching
practices employed by Indonesia‘s more than three million teachers and across its 260,000
schools. However, with a few exceptions, a casual look in any one of these schools will
reveal poor conditions, few books or teaching aids, and traditional ‗chalk-and-talk‘ teaching
methods. Primary school students, especially in rural schools, typically sit on cramped
benches at rows of scarred wooden desks in scuffed and bare classrooms facing a blackboard
where a stern teacher instructs them to copy down notes or complete dull standardized tasks
(Heyward & Sopantini, 2013).
While we should acknowledge the examples of outstanding teachers conducting lively and
engaging classes which contrast with this depressing picture, these are undoubtedly the
303
exception. In more cases than not, classrooms and lecture halls today look little changed from
the 1950s. Standardized international exams demonstrate that Indonesia‘s student outcomes
are lower than those of students in other developing countries, even after taking family socio-
economic status into account. This fact suggests that deficiencies in the education system, in
the curriculum, schools, classrooms, or in the approach to teaching and learning, rather than
the socio-economic backgrounds of students, are responsible for lower levels of performance
(World Bank, 2010, p. 2).
The study described in this thesis attempted to identify the cause of this failure by focussing
on the implementation of active learning by a group of teachers, schools and school clusters
in three districts in the remote province of North Maluku in eastern Indonesia. The aim of the
study is to contribute to the policy dialogue in Indonesia and to the development of theory in
educational change, by focussing on a case of policy implementation in a developing country.
Responding to the research questions
The study addressed two research questions:
1. How do teachers translate active learning methodology in the classroom?
2. What factors impede the implementation of active learning?
The study found that Indonesia‘s policy on active learning had not yet been implemented in
this case. Although the realities were different in each school and classroom, teachers in the
primary schools studied in North Maluku were not yet effectively using an active learning
methodology in their classrooms. In general, they did not understand the theoretical or
practical aspects of active learning, commonly referred to in Indonesia as PAKEM. With two
exceptions, which were described in Chapter Four, teaching was traditional, didactic and
304
teacher-directed. In the two classes where an attempt was made to use an active learning
approach, analysis revealed that the changes were mainly cosmetic and classroom
interactions were almost totally teacher-directed.
The cause of this failure is varied. The study identified a number of key factors which impede
the implementation of active learning: (1) teacher in-service training factors, (2) school
supervision factors, (3) policy alignment, and (4) community factors. The theory of House
and McQuillan (1998) on school reform and program implementation suggests that studies of
reform, and indeed the policy makers and implementers of reform initiatives, should consider
three perspectives: (1) technical, (2) political, and (3) cultural. Failed reforms efforts are
frequently a result of ignoring one or more of these perspectives (House & McQuillan, 1998,
p. 199). This study applied the theory in a case study of policy implementation in Indonesian
schools, and found it to be useful in this context, helping to identify a much wider and deeper
set of factors associated with the failure of policy implementation than is usually revealed in
more traditional studies which rely on quantitative approaches and focus primarily on
structural and technical aspects of implementation.
Among the reasons that Indonesia‘s policy of active learning has not yet been implemented in
a systemic way in this case were: (1) Indonesia‘s policy framework, while well directed, is
fragmented, fluid and at times uncertain and contradictory; (2) the traditional societal and
bureaucratic cultures of Indonesia and Indonesia‘s schools work against the adoption of
active learning approaches, valuing instead traditional passive learning styles; (3) the high-
stakes national examination system rewards traditional chalk-and-talk approaches rather than
active learning as it tests recall of facts more than other broader competencies (Cannon &
Arlianti, 2009); (4) the education system lacks technical capacity to properly support in-
305
service training of its teachers, which typically results in one-off training events conducted by
poorly prepared trainers; and (5) a mix of poor funding and poor governance results in
insufficient financial support for reforms. This blend of cultural, technical and political
challenges, set against the sheer scale of the problem, creates a complex set of stumbling
blocks for reform. All of these factors have created a problematic reform situation, especially
when coupled with the fact that active learning is not rooted in indigenous Indonesian
teaching practices, or in beliefs about teaching and learning, or in beliefs about children and
how they learn. In this situation, active learning principles do not easily take root or become
mainstream in the Indonesian teachers‘ repertoire of daily teaching practices.
Teachers and teachers’ in-service training
As change agents, teachers play a very important role in the success or failure of the
implementation of active learning. The study found that the teachers‘ lack of conceptual and
procedural understanding of active learning contributed to their difficulty in making the
desired change take place. Their beliefs about children and how they learn, although
changing towards ones that are more conducive to improving the learning process, are an
important element to pay attention to and be dealt with in any activities that strengthen
teachers‘ capacity. Teaching practices continued to be the same as before the policy on active
learning was introduced. Cluster-based teachers‘ in-service training, as a system designed to
provide the professional support to effect change, worked well only in certain areas where
external project funding was concentrated. The idea that success which is concentrated in a
few places will automatically be followed with the same success anywhere else is an illusion.
In addition to the need for many internal improvements in the teacher clusters so that
problems can be solved, a more thorough approach is required to teachers‘ professional
development at the whole system level. The national policy and approach to teacher
306
professional development should not only focus on structural aspects such as teacher
certification and the incentives that come with this program for teachers. More importantly
the policy for in-service training should focus on how to address the need to improve
teacher‘s performance in the classroom in order to directly to improve the learning process
and thus learning outcomes.
Teachers’ supervision
The initial national policy on active learning implementation (CBSA) identified teachers‘
supervision as critical to provide teachers with the professional support needed. This was
seen as the beginning of the school cluster system, now used as the vehicle for in-service
training of teachers in curriculum and pedagogy. However, as has been demonstrated in the
study, teacher supervision tends to block - instead of promote - change through a culture in
which compliance and control are more important than creating a climate in which teachers
can improve their professionalism. Teachers‘ time is taken up in fulfilling administrative
duties. The current policies on supervision need to be reviewed, not only at sub-district and
district levels but at higher levels in the system, particularly at the national level.
Policy alignment
This theme emerged from the analysis reported in Chapter Four. Little was directly
mentioned by respondents in the case study of the (non) alignment of curriculum policies
addressing teaching and learning and assessment. Contrary to the international literature
highlighting the ineffectiveness of government decrees or regulations to affect change at
school level (Morris, 1997), up until now the Indonesian Government has adopted a top-
down policy change approach, defined in this context by the dominant use of central
government laws and regulations to effect the desired changes. This constitutes an externally
307
driven school reform approach which ignores the many considerations, not only ideological
but practical and cultural, which must be taken into account if reforms are to succeed.
Indonesian teachers are constrained by many obstacles including policies of learning and
assessment that are not aligned, lack of support, and bureaucratic culture (Bjork, 2005).
The issue of the national examination system and the way in which it distorts both the
curriculum and teaching and learning process is at the centre of critical public discourse.
Active learning as a progressive form of pedagogy runs against a system where the success of
children‘s learning and of teachers‘ teaching and indeed the entire system is determined by
the examination result.
Introducing education reform involving progressive approaches to teaching and learning such
as active learning requires a shift where pupil participation in the learning is emphasized.
Participation in the process of learning cannot be measured and judged appropriately by the
type of examination so far annually administered. At least a recognition of this non-alignment
between teaching and learning and assessment policies has to be made first. Then the two
policies have to be made to align with each other before more efforts are put into reform. If
this is not done, all efforts at effecting change and introducing active learning will not result
in the routine use of these principles by teachers. Teachers are aware that they will be judged
not by how much students‘ participation in their learning is increased, for example, but by
how well they perform in the examination.
Community factors
Community factors associated with implementation failure are largely cultural in nature.
Active learning requires teachers and students to behave in ways which are outside the social-
308
cultural framework. This creates tensions. Children find the teachers‘ attempts amusing and
interpret them as an invitation to become unruly. Colleagues and supervisors are confused by
active learning and see it as evidence of poor discipline and lack of respect from students to
the teacher.
The cultural perspective suggests both constraints and opportunities. Teachers, principals,
parents, students, and others in the system are unaccustomed to taking control, exercising
initiatives, displaying leadership and supporting change. The national education system over
many years has fostered a culture of compliance and top-down decision making. Teachers
and principals have been rewarded and promoted not for displays of creativity and initiative
but for seniority, respect for authority and sometimes family connections. The new culture
implied in the cluster system and the models of professional development discussed have not
yet taken root.
A top-down culture which values respect for authority, compliance and conformity does not
fit well with the underlying assumptions of an active learning approach. School and
organizational cultures do not promote openness for teachers to engage in professional and
intellectual exchanges of information or debates. Policy implementation strategies do not
address these school and organizational cultures as problems for policy implementation.
On the positive side, traditional local cultures strongly support the model of collegial and
collective learning embodied in the cluster system. Teachers clearly enjoy the cluster
meetings and the chance they provide for networking and clubbing together. Many teachers,
especially the younger ones, indicate that a lot of learning – informal as well as formal –
takes place during the meetings.
309
Recommendations
This analysis suggests a number of recommendations for the Indonesian education system. It
also suggests recommendations for further research. These may be categorized as: (1)
recommendations for research method, and (2) recommendations for further investigations
relating to the findings of this study. Recommendations for theory and practice include
suggestions for Indonesian policy-makers and for international development agencies.
The findings of a case study such as this are not generalizable to a general population. They
do, however, add to the body of evidence supporting a theory of educational change, in
particular, the theory relating to the problem of policy borrowing (Guthrie, 2011; Phillip &
Ochs, 2004), and to the store of knowledge about the implementation of policy, education
reform and active learning. The findings do suggest recommendations for policy-makers and
practitioners in Indonesia and elsewhere. In particular the study found that the use of House
and McQuillan‘s (1998) perspectives of change deepened and enhanced the analysis of policy
implementation, leading to insights which would not otherwise have been found. Policy-
makers, and those responsible for managing policy implementation at system level, could
benefit from a similar approach, in which the political and cultural aspects of change are
considered alongside the more commonly considered technical perspective. Further research
could build on the body of knowledge in this area, adding evidence to either support or
question this theory of reform, and, in particular the problem of policy borrowing in the
reform of education and teaching practices in developing nations, such as Indonesia. This is
discussed in greater detail below.
310
Recommendations for further research
Suggestions for research methodology
1. Research is required on the impact of active learning on student learning outcomes:
This study has investigated the implementation of active learning in Indonesian
schools. It has not considered impacts on learning outcomes. Following the
suggestion made by Guthrie (2011), further research could usefully investigate the
link between progressive pedagogies such as active learning and student learning
outcomes. The key point made by Guthrie is that research to date typically has
assumed or implied that the introduction of progressive teaching practices, such as
active learning, will automatically improve student learning in developing nations like
Indonesia. This is an untested hypothesis.
2. More qualitative research on classroom practice: As described in Chapters One and
Two, much of the research into education reform in Indonesia is quantitative (see, for
example, Emqi, 2010; Evayanti, 2010; Hasan 2009; Srihartanto, 2007). As with
similar studies reported in other countries such as Cambodia, Egypt, Jordan,
Kyrzigkistan, and Malawi (Abdellah, & Zohry, 2010; Bunlay, Wright, Sophia,
Bredenberg, & Singh 2010; Megahed, Ginsburg, Roggeman and Shukri, 2010;
Mizrachi, Padilla, & Susuwele-Banda, 2010; Price-Rom and Sainazarov, 2010), there
are two main types of studies conducted in Indonesia; studies conducted by donor-
funded development projects and studies conducted by post-graduate Indonesian
students. The dominant paradigm in the former is educational economics.
Consequently much of the research is quantitative: it adopts a macro view of reform;
input-output models, financial analysis and a systemic structural perspective (Cannon,
311
2012). The dominant methodological approach in the latter is survey. As discussed in
Chapter One, the quality of research is limited by the capacity and financial resources
of students and the universities. The research also tends to be Java-centric, focussed
on the more populated areas of Indonesia rather than isolated and less-well served
areas such as Maluku in Eastern Indonesia.
Both types of research typically assume an economic, cost-benefit view of education,
seeing education as a public utility which aims to improve national competitiveness
(see, for example, Ministry of National Education, 2007a; World Bank, in press).
Success or failure of the system is measured by aggregated performance on
international tests or national examinations (see World Bank, in press, for example).
This approach overlooks other, less easily quantifiable educational outcomes, such as
creative thinking, problem solving, innovation, and social harmony, and traditional
Indonesian values such as religious piety and nationalism.
More qualitative studies by universities, development projects or practicing teachers
could address this issue, widen the information basis for policy development, and help
to build a broader range of research capacities within the education community. More
studies of change at the level of the classroom are needed. More studies of remote
areas, reflecting the diversity of Indonesia also would help. Such studies would
support a better informed policy dialogue.
3. More long-term, independent impact studies: As discussed in Chapter Two, there is a
lack of independent, long-term research into educational reform in Indonesia
(Cannon, 2012). Research conducted by donor-funded development projects tends to
312
be limited by the short-term project cycle. Most projects are designed around a five-
six year time-frame. Evaluations of project impact are typically conducted towards the
end of the project. Occasionally impact studies are conducted shortly after project
completion. Rarely are long-term evaluations conducted to determine the extent to
which project impacts – policies and practices introduced by the project – are
sustained beyond the life of the project. Note that there are some exceptions to this,
such as Malcom and colleagues‘ (2001) study of the impact of ALPS, conducted six
years after the conclusion of the project, and Cannon and Arlianti‘s (2008) study on
the effectiveness of development projects over a ten-year period in Indonesia.
As all project evaluations are commissioned by the donor, arguably the independence
of the research is compromised by commercial considerations (Guthrie, 2011). While
project reviews do often raise critical questions about project approaches and impacts,
these are typically discussed with the audience in mind and tend to address the details
of design or implementation rather than overarching approaches, such as the short-
term project cycle or importation of foreign policy and practice (See, for example,
Australian Agency for International Development, 2012; The Mitchell Group, 2007;
The World Bank, 2013; United States Agency for International Development, 2012).
As discussed in the previous chapter, all of those involved share a common interest in
highlighting success, or at least not ‗biting the hand that feeds them‘, which means not
criticizing the donor or the Indonesian Government for broad policy approaches or
standard practices.
There is a need for more long-term studies of reform and policy implementation. This
could include longitudinal studies of change in classrooms, or long-term impact
313
studies of development projects, to determine the extent to which change is sustained.
Such research could be funded by donors, government, research institutes or the
corporate sector. In order to increase the independence of such studies, ideally the
research would be funded independently of the donors that funded the projects.
4. Wider range of respondents: The influence on Indonesia‘s education policy of
international donors and the foreign consultants they employ is clear from the analysis
presented in this thesis. Further research could benefit from including respondents
from the donors and their implementing partners as policy actors.
5. Quasi-experimental research design: One of the findings of this study is that the
implementation of Indonesia‘s policy on active learning has failed, in part, because it
is a ‗borrowed policy‘. It has not grown from within the Indonesian culture or
education system. Rather, it has been imported from developed western nations
(Ministry of National Education, 2013). See Chapter Two for a discussion of policy
borrowing (Guthrie 2011; Hallinger, 2005; Phillip & Ochs, 2004).
In order to test this theory, to more thoroughly determine the extent to which failure is
attributable to the problem of policy borrowing, a quasi-experimental design could be
used (Burns, 2000). This could be similar to the approach used by some donor-funded
projects, where project evaluations include studies of change in target schools and
control or ‗comparison‘ schools (see, for example, RTI International, 2013) In the
target schools, enabling conditions for policy implementation would be created, while
in control or ‗comparison‘ schools these conditions would not be present. Such
conditions might include teacher training based on sound principles: needs-based,
314
long-term, with follow-up in-school mentoring, involving the teachers in planning and
evaluating the training, and so forth.
Such a quasi-experimental research design could also compare different approaches to
supporting implementation: for example, one-off training events verses longer-term,
more substantial training, or training aimed at rapidly achieving results verses training
focussed on small, incremental implementation steps over a longer period.
Suggestions for development of theory
In order to further develop the theory on implementation of active learning and the influence
of policy borrowing (Crossley, 2009; Guthrie, 2011; Hallinger 2005; Phillip & Ochs, 2004),
and to build the body of knowledge in this field, similar case studies could be conducted in a
range of cultural and political contexts. Such studies would, ideally, incorporate the three
change perspectives: cultural, political, technical (House & McQuillan, 1998).
1. Comparative studies in similar cultural contexts: Similar case studies could be
conducted in similar cultural contexts including other regions of Indonesia and other
South-East Asian countries like Thailand, Laos, Malaysia, or the Philippines, building
the knowledge base on implementation of policy and practices in classrooms in this
region. This research could usefully address the question of constraints that teachers
face as they attempt to implement active learning and more fully engage children in
their learning.
2. Case studies in different cultural-political contexts: Similar case studies could be
usefully conducted in developed western nation contexts to determine the extent to
315
which culture, politics and technical aspects have supported implementation in these
settings.
3. Case studies of successful implementation in Indonesia: It would be useful to conduct
a similar study in identified cases where active learning has been successfully
implemented in Indonesia. Such studies could take place, for example, in successful
international or ‗national plus‘ schools in Indonesia, where the educational culture,
political and technical perspectives have been addressed by policy implementers at
school level to support successful implementation of active learning.
Recommendations for policy and practice
Recommendations for policy-makers and practitioners are relevant to both the Indonesian
Government and its international development partners. The findings of the study highlight
the need to address cultural and political aspects as well as technical aspects of reform.
Indonesia‘s education system is characterized by a top-down, bureaucratic model of
compliance and control. Indonesian teachers tend to see themselves more as civil servants
than professionals (Bjork, 2005). Meanwhile, the implementation of active learning, a
borrowed policy promoted by foreign donors, assumes a different technical, political and
cultural context, in which teachers are professionally empowered, technically competent and
see themselves as independent professionals within the education system.
The key recommendation arising from this finding is that Indonesian policy on classroom
practice should be made in a way that is more cognizant of this reality. Simply borrowing
policy from the developed world will likely lead to more failure in implementation. What is
316
required is a review of current policy and implementation expectations and an adjustment of
that policy to fit with the technical, political and cultural realities of Indonesia. These
realities, it should be stressed, are not uniform and vary according to the local context.
Teachers in middle-class urban schools are likely to have greater access to information and a
range of professional supports than those in isolated rural schools. This study was conducted
in a group of schools in the relatively isolated region of North Maluku in Eastern Indonesia.
Policy should therefore be aligned to local as well as national political, cultural and technical
realities. This implies that national policy-makers should allow for diversity and flexibility in
the interpretation and implementation of their policies at the local level. This could mean, for
example, greater decentralization of decision-making in such areas as curriculum, assessment
and pedagogy, than is currently the case. The following more specific recommendations for
policy are based on the findings of this study.
1. Policy development: Foremost among the recommendations for policy and practice,
education reform policies should recognize the cultural, political and technical
realities of schools, teachers and local communities. Changes in teaching practice
which aim to improve education quality should start by building on pedagogies that
have roots in indigenous beliefs about children and how they learn and the role of
adult in children learning. The study of classroom practice in North Maluku found
that traditional teacher-centred lessons can be lively, effective and engaging for
children. This is not to suggest that the policy on active learning is a mistake, but, as
suggested by Guthrie (2011), a measured approach to implementation is more likely
to be successful than the approaches which have failed in Indonesia generally and
North Maluku specifically.
317
2. Teacher in-service training: The current policy and approach to teacher professional
development in Indonesia is fragmented and uncoordinated. At the national level, in-
service training is conceptualized as a continuing professional development model, in
which teachers are ranked according to the results of a competency test and placed in
a program of in-service training accordingly (Ministry of National Education, 2012;
2013). At the same time, a national program of teacher certification, which is still
underway, aims to lift the overall standard of teaching by improving qualifications in
line with minimum service standards (World Bank, in press).
While the teacher certification program focuses on structural aspects such as
qualifications and incentives, the continuing professional development approach
focuses on in-service training to improve quality. The former has been generously
funded by the national government. The latter relies on provinces and districts to align
their own budgets and programs to the national framework. While this policy for in-
service training does focus on the need to improve teachers‘ performance in the
classroom, it is questionable how effective it will be given the lack of attention to the
‗how‘ of implementation, and the lack of coordination within the system.
In line with the literature on teachers‘ training discussed in Chapter Two, teacher
professional development must be better designed to be more strategic, more long-
term, more needs-based and managed with the participation of the teachers
themselves. The trainers must be better prepared, better trained and able to deliver
training in an active and engaging way (Nielson, 1998; Villegas-Reimers, 2003).
318
To achieve this, programs should be decentralized and managed at the provincial level
in collaboration with local authorities, the LPMP, the universities, and, where present,
international development partners. Training will be best delivered in the existing
school clusters and teacher working groups. Such changes are possible within the
current decentralized framework, but require a willingness on the part of national
government officials and policy-makers to devolve authority for planning and
implementing training to the provincial level.
3. Teacher supervision: Currently teacher supervision focusses heavily on top-down
control to ensure compliance with national policy. The approach has not changed in
any significant way with the reforms of education since the late 1990s. As described
in the case study in Chapter Four, this translates into a lot of time spent by teachers on
completing plans, documents and required forms. In order to increase the professional
independence of teachers within the education system, this model must change. At the
same time, it must be recognized that Indonesia‘s societal and bureaucratic cultures
value respect for authority, group uniformity and top-down decision-making. The
tradition of professional independence among teachers is incompatible with this.
In order to begin to shift the bureaucratic culture, changes should be made to the
system of teacher supervision. Currently school supervisors are for the most part
senior teachers who have ‗earned‘ their position through longevity and loyalty,
typically promoted from a school principalship towards the end of their careers.
Typically the supervisors are less familiar with active learning and contemporary
approaches than are the teachers. In order to change the pattern of supervision,
younger, more active and better trained teachers could be promoted into the position
319
of supervisor. A rotation system could be effective, in which teachers or principals are
seconded into the position for a period before returning to the classroom. This is only
one suggestion and local solutions should be sought with the aim of increasing the
relevance of teacher supervision and making it more supportive of reforming teaching
practice and implementing active learning. The focus of supervision should be more
on sharing good practice, encouraging teachers, schools and clusters to find their own
solutions to improving quality and implementing active learning, and empowering
teachers as professionals. In this way, the culture of control and compliance could be
gradually shifted into one of empowerment and innovation. The current national
standards for school supervisors in fact support this change of role (Ministry of
National Education, 2007e).
4. Policy alignment: The study found that one of the causes of implementation failure is
a lack of alignment between two aspects of the curriculum: the pedagogy of active
learning (and a focus on competencies as learning outcomes) does not align with the
national assessment system, which rewards rote learning. The national examination
system has become increasingly high-stakes over time (Cannon & Arlianti, 2009).
Implementation of active learning is seen by teachers as counterproductive in terms of
gaining good test scores (World Bank, in press). Until this contradiction within the
policy framework is resolved, the implementation of active learning is unlikely to be
successful.
In order to address this, the national assessment system must be reformed. Arguably, a
better system would include two approaches: (1) national testing of basic skills
(literacy and numeracy) to assess the performance of the system over time and enable
320
diagnostic comparisons between schools, districts and provinces, and (2) local school
or district-level assessment of student competencies in specific subject areas.
5. Teacher training (pre-service): This study did not address the issue of pre-service
teacher training. However, based on the evidence of the study, it appears likely that,
as with in-service training for practicing teachers, pre-service training for student
teachers is currently not well-aligned with principles of active learning. There is
evidence to suggest that the training tends to be heavily focussed on theory and
subject knowledge with little attention given to pedagogy (Baedlowi, 2003). Policy
makers could consider increasing the focus on active learning pedagogy alongside
subject knowledge. Teaching practicums could also be better structured, better
resourced and better integrated into the class-based on-campus program.
6. Strengthen the role of civil society in countering the politics of interest: As discussed
in Chapter One, the successful implementation of active learning has been seriously
constrained by the politics of interest in Indonesia. A combination of corruption,
collusion and nepotisim at every level within the system results in clusters or
‗ensembles‘ of interest which impede reform.
An example of the blurring of the distinction between public and private finances was
mentioned in Chapter Four. Prior to the reform movement which began with the end
of President Suharto‘s New Order Government, corruption cases were rarely exposed
or reported. The press now reports daily on corruption cases in all sectors. According
to one recent report, some 60 per cent of regional heads have been implicated in
corruption cases or convicted of corruption (Jakarta Post, 2014). The politics of
interest result in uneven distribution of teachers, substantial loss of state funding,
321
including that intended to support teacher in-service training, and the appointment and
promotion of teachers, principals and senior officials not on the basis of merit, but
loyalty and political interest.
Indonesia‘s civil society, including the media and non-government organizations, can
potentially reduce the extent of corruption and the politics of interest. For example,
the non-government organization, Indonesian Corruption Watch, among others
supports the work of the national Corruption Eradication Commission (Komisi
Pemberantasan Korupsi, or KPK) which is achieving significant success in
prosecuting corruptors. Further strengthening of civil society will result in less
corruption and political interference in the administration of education, more and
better targetted teacher professional development, and a more transparent needs-based
and merit-based system of teacher supervision, recruitment, deployment and
promotion.
7. Building research capacity: Historically, donor-funded projects have focussed on
providing funding and technical assistance to the Indonesian Government to improve
the education system. This approach relies on external, international advisors and
inevitably leads to policy borrowing. Increasingly, however, the major donors are
shifting towards making greater use of Indonesian experts, and supporting the
development of what has become known as ‗the knowledge sector‘, referring to
building the capacity of Indonesian institutions for research, consultancy and policy
advice. For example, increasingly the World Bank does not lend Indonesia money for
development but provides technical assistance (World Bank, 2013). AusAID has
recently commenced a long-term project to develop the knowledge sector, including
322
in the field of education (Australia-Indonesia Partnership for Pro-Poor Policy:
Knowledge Sector Initiative). This shift could see positive impacts for Indonesian
policy, enabling the development of policies and practices for education, which are
based on Indonesian cultural, political and technical realities and are supported by
quality research produced by Indonesian universities and research institutes.
8. Greater collaboration within the ASEAN region: Within the ASEAN group of
nations, trade barriers are slowly being reduced, along with obstacles to the flow of
ideas, people and commerce. This change will impact on the education sector, making
it easier for collaboration between universities, enabling joint research projects across
nations and sharing of expertise and knowledge between countries in the region.
This will, in turn, provide support for many of the above recommendations for
research, policy and practice, and has the potential to reduce the reliance on western
experts, which leads to policy borrowing from the developed West. It should enable a
more robust and dynamic policy dialogue and the development of education policy
and reform which is more soundly based on ASEAN technical, political and cultural
contexts.
Conclusion
Indonesia‘s policy on active learning is a ‗borrowed policy‘. It does not align with the
technical, political or cultural realities of the Indonesian context.
From a technical perspective, Indonesian teachers require a far more effective approach to
professional development and curriculum implementation in order to implement active
323
learning. Following Guthrie‘s (2011) advice, classroom change in the developing world
should focus on upgrading traditional and formal approaches to teaching and learning, rather
than attempting to replace existing practices with radically different approaches borrowed
from the West, especially without higher levels of financial support and adequate in-service
teacher training. From a political perspective, the implementation process requires a far more
coordinated approach. The current raft of reform policies, promoted partly by international
donors, such as the World Bank, focuses heavily on structural and technical reform, while
ignoring the cultural and political dimensions. Active learning may be seen as a challenge to
both political and cultural norms in Indonesia. Policy makers and managers at the central
level continue to produce new regulations, while failing to plan effectively for policy
implementation. The structure of government is fragmented and uncoordinated, creating more
challenges in this massive, decentralized system. From a cultural perspective, active learning
does not sit well with local societal or organizational cultures, which value respect for
authority, top-down decision making, passivity, conflict avoidance, conformity and
compliance.
This study and the above recommendations are significant not only for Indonesia, which is
currently spending substantial amounts of money every year on reform programs which fail
repeatedly due to lack of awareness of the need to address cultural, technical and political
factors. It also offers a warning to other developing nations and for the international donors
which support them.
324
References
5 Masalah Utama Kurikulum 2013 (September, 11, 2014). Kompas. p.11
Abduhzen, M. (2013, February 21). Urgensi kurikulum 2013. Kompas. Retrieved April
25, 2013, from
http://edukasi.kompas.com/read/2013/02/21/13003379/Urgensi.Kurikulum.2013
Abdullah, S. (2003). Pengembangan profesionaliseme guru SD melalui gugus sekolah. In
D. Supriadi (Ed.), Guru di Indonesia: Pendidikan, pelatihan dan perjuangannya
sejak zaman kolonial hingga era reformasi (pp. 533-546). Jakarta, DKI: Direktorat
Tenaga Kependidikan, Direktorat Jenderal Pendidikan Dasar dan Menengah,
Departemen Pendidikan Nasional.
Ainscow, M., Hargreaves, D., & Hopkins, D. (1995). Mapping the process of change in
schools: The development of six new research techniques. Evaluation and
Research in Education, 9(2), 75-90.
Alexander, N. C. (2001). Paying for education: How the World Bank and the International
Monetary Fund influence education in developing countries. Peabody Journal of
Education, 76(3/4), 285-338.
Alexander, P., Murphy, P. & Woods P. (1996). Of squalls and fathoms: Navigating the
seas of educational innovation. Educational Researcher, 25 (3), 31-36.
Alexander, R. (2000). Culture and pedagogy: International comparisons in primary
education. Oxford, U K: Blackwell Publishing.
Alexander, R. (2001). Border Crossings: towards a comparative pedagogy. Comparative
Education 37(4), 507-523.
Alexander, R. (2008). Education For All: The quality imperative and the problem of
pedagogy, London, UK: Institute of Education, University of London.
Alexander, R. (2009). Towards a comparative pedagogy. In R. Cowen, A.M. Kazamias &
E.Unterhalter (Eds.). International handbook of comparative education (pp. 923-
942). New York, NY: Springer.
Alexander, R. J. (1984). Primary teaching. London, UK: Cassell.
Ancess, J. (2001). Teacher learning at the intersection of school learning and student
outcomes. In A. Lieberman & L. Miller (Eds.), Teachers caught in the action:
Professional development that matters (pp.61-78). New York, NY: Teachers
College Press.
Anderson, J. & Poole, M. (2001). Assignment and thesis writing. Milton, Queensland:
John Wiley & Sons.
Anthony, G. (1996). Active learning in a constructivist framework. Educational Studies in
Mathematics, 31(4), 349-369.
Australian Agency for International Development. (2010). Australia‘s education
partnership with Indonesia; a contribution to the government of Indonesia‘s
education sector support program. Retrieved January 24, 2013, from
http://www.ausaid.gov.au/country/indonesia/pdf/aipeducationdesign.pdf
Australian Agency for International Development. (2012). Australia Indonesia basic
325
education program: Independent completion report, May 2010, Retrieved 1st
November, 20011, from
http://aid.dfat.gov.au/publications/pages/9890_5853_7042_3555_1061.aspx
Avalos, B., & Haddad, W. (1981). Review of teacher effectiveness research in Africa,
India, Latin America, Middle East, Malaysia, Philippines, and Thailand: Synthesis of
results. Ottawa, Canada: International Development Research Centre.
Bachtiar, H., Simatupang, W., & Sayogyo T.B. (1988). Masyarakat dan kebudayaan:
kumpulan karangan untuk Prof. Dr. Selo Soemarjan, Jakarta, DKI: Djambatan.
Baedlowi. (2003). Perkembangan kualitatif sekolah menengah keguruan tahun 1945-
1989. In Supriyadi, D. (Ed.). Guru di Indonesia: pendidikan, pelatihan dan
perjuangannya sejak jaman kolonial hingga era reformasi (pp. 103-146). Jakarta,
DKI: Departemen Pendidikan Nasional.
Baker, S. & Smith, S. (1999). Starting off on the right foot: The influence of four
principles of professional development in improvng literacy instruction in two
kindergarten programs. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 14 (4), 239-
253.
Ball, S. J. (1990). Politics and policy making in education: Explorations in policy
sociology. London, UK: Routledge.
Ball, S. J. (1999). What is policy? Texts, trajectories and toolboxes. In J. Marshall & M.
Peters (Eds.), Education Policy (pp. 3-18). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
Barber, M. Mourshed, M. (2007). How the world‘s best-performing schools systems come
out on top: A report. McKinsey & Company Web. Retrieved April 24, 2013 from
http://mckinseyonsociety.com/how-the-worlds-best-performing-schools-come-out-
on-top/
Beeby, C. E. (1966). The quality of education in developing countries. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Behrman, J. R, Deolalikar, A. B., Soon, L, Y. (2002). Promoting effective schooling
through education decentralization in Bangladesh, Indonesia, and the Philippines.
The Asian Development Bank Web. Retrieved April 24, 2014, from
www.adb.org/publications/promoting-effective-schooling-through-education-
decentralization-bangladesh-indonesia-and-philippines
Berry, J., Poortinga, Y. Segall, M. & Dasen, P. (1992). Cross-cultural psychology:
Research and applications. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Bjork, C. (2003). Local responses to decentralization policy in Indonesia. Comparative
Education Review Chicago, 47(2), 184-216.
Bjork, C. (2005). Indonesian education: Teachers, schools, and central bureaucracy.
New York, NY: Routledge.
Bond, M. H., Leung, K., Tong, K. K., de Carrasquel, S.R., Murakami, F. (2004), Culture-
level dimensions of social axioms and their correlates across 41 cultures, Journal
of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 35(5), 548-570.
Bonwell, C. C. (2000). Active learning: Creating excitement in the classroom [PDF
document]. Retrieved April 14, 2014 from Active Learning Workshop Notes
Online Web site:
http://www.ydae.purdue.edu/lct/hbcu/documents/Active_Learning_Creating_Excit
326
ement_in_the_Classroom.pdf
Borko, H., & Putnam, R.T. (1995). Expanding a teacher‘s knowledge base: A cognitive
psychological perspective on professional development. In T.R. Guskey & M.
Huberman (Eds.), Professional Development in Education. New York, NY:
Teachers College Press.
Borman, K. M., Castenell. L., Gallaher. K., Kilgore, S. B., & Martinson, D. A. (1995).
Education reform and policy considerations. In P. W. Cookson & B. Schneider
(Eds.), Transforming schools (pp. 237-266). New York, NY: Garland.
Brannen, J. (Ed.), (1992). Mixing methods: Qualitative and quantitative research.
Aldershot, UK: Avebury.
Bridgman, P., & Davis, G. (2000). The Australian policy handbook (2nd ed.). St
Leonards, Australia: Allen & Unwin.
Bryman, A. (1992). Qualitative and quantitative research: Further reflections on their
integration, in J. Brannnen. (Ed.), Mixing methods: Qualitative and
quantitative research (pp. 57-78). Aldershot, UK: Avebury.
Buchori, M. (2001). Notes on education in Indonesia. Jakarta, DKI: Jakarta Post and Asia
Foundation.
Bunlay, N., Wright, W.E., Sophea, H., Bredenburg, K., & Singh, M. (2010). Active-
learning pedagogies as a reform initiative: The case of Cambodia. Retrieved
January 15, 2013, from www.equip123.net/docs/E1-ActiveLearningPedagogy-
Cambodia.pdf
Burgess, R. (1991). In the field: An introduction to field research. London, UK:
Routledge.
Burns, R.B. (2000). Introduction to research methods. (4th
Ed.). London, UK: Sage.
Burton, D. (Ed.), (2000). Research training for social scientists: A handbook for
postgraduate researchers. London, UK: Sage.
Calderhead, J. (2001). International experience of teaching reform. In V. Richardson
(Ed.), Handbook of research in teaching (4th
ed.), (pp. 777-800). Washington, DC:
American Educational Research Association.
Cannon, R.A. (1991). Expatriate 'experts' in Indonesia and Thailand: Professional and
personal qualities for effective teaching and consulting. International Review of
Education, 37(4), 453-472.
Cannon, R.A. (2001). The impact of training and education in Indonesian aid schemes.
The International Journal for Academic Development, 6(2), 109-119.
Cannon, R.A. (2009). Diseases of educational development [Electronic Version]. Higher
Education Research and Development Society of Australasia. Retrieved April 5,
2009.
Cannon, R.A. (2012). The progressive education development fallacy in developing
countries by Gerard Guthrie: A review. Message posted to DEVPOLICYBLOG,
archived at http://devpolicy.org/the-progressive-education-fallacy-in-developing-
countries-by-gerard-guthrie-a-review-20120924/
Cannon, R.A., & Arlianti, R. (2008). Review of education development models for
increasing access to quality basic education in Indonesia. Jakarta, DKI: World
327
Bank.
Cannon, R.A., & Arlianti, R. (2009). An Exploratory Study of The Ujian Nasional
(SMP/MTS). A study prepared for Decentralized Basic Education – 3; A basic
education development project supported by the United States Agency for
International Development (USAID) [Electronic Version]. Retrieved November
16, 2013, from
http://inovasipendidikan.net/research/An%20Exploratory%20Study%20of%20the
%20Ujian%20Nasional%20in%20Indonesia%202010.pdf
Cannon, R.A., & Arlianti, R. (2010). Education policy and practice: A study of changes in
Government of Indonesia policy and practice since MGP-BE project inception
[Electronic Version].
Cannon, R.A., & Hore, T. (1997). The long-term effects of 'one-shot' professional
development courses: An Indonesian case study. International Journal for
Academic Development, 2(1), 35-425.
Chadbourne, R. (1995). Student reluctance to take up school-based teacher education:
One university‘s experience. Journal of Education for Teaching, 21(2), 219-228.
Chowdhury, A. & Sugema, I. (2005). How significant and effective has foreign aid to
Indonesia been? (Discussion Paper No. 0505). Adelaide, SA: University of
Adelaide.
Churchill. R., & Williamson. J. (1999). Traditional attitudes and contemporary
experiences: Teachers and educational change. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher
Education and Development, 2(2), 43-5l.
Clarke, P. (2001). Teaching and learning : The culture of pedagogy. New Delhi, India:
Sage.
Clarke, P. (2003). Culture and classroom reform: The case of the District Primary
Education Project, India. Comparative Education, 39(1), 27–44.
Clement, M. & Vanderberghe, R. (2000). Teachers‘ professional development: a solitary
or collegial adventure? Teaching and Teacher Education, 16, 81-101.
Cobbe, P., Wood, T., & Yackel, E. (1990). Constructivist views on the teaching and
learning of Mathematics, Journal for Research in Mathematics Education.
Monograph, Vol. 4. pp.125-146 & 195-210
Collins, W. (2009). Collins English Dictionary - Complete & Unabridged, (10th Ed.)
[Electronic version]. Retreived April 24, 2013, from
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/power+politics
Conley. D. (1997). Roadmap to restructuring: Charting the course of change in American
education (2nd ed.). Eugene, OR: ERIC Clearinghouse of Educational
Management.
Considine, M. (1994). Public policy: A critical approach. Melbourne, VIC: Macmillan
Cook, I. & Crang, M. (1995). Doing ethnographies. London, UK: Royal Geographical
Society with the Institute of British Geographers.
Cowen, R. (2000). Comparing futures or comparing pasts? Comparative Education,
36(3), 333-342.
328
Cross, S.E., Bacon, P.L. & Morris, M.L. (2000). The relational-interdependent self-
construal and relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(4),
791-808.
Crossley, M.W. (2009). Rethinking context in comparative education. In R. Cowen & A.
M. Kazamias (Eds.). International Handbook of Comparative Education
(pp.1173-1188). New York, NY: Springer.
Crossley, M.W. (2010). Bridging cultures and traditions for educational and
international development: Comparative research, dialogue and difference, a
paper presented at the World Council of Comparative Education Societies
(WCCES) World Congress, Istanbul, Turkey.
Cuban, L. (1984). How teachers taught. New York, NY: Longman.
Dahlstrom, L., Swarts, P. & Zeichner, K. (1999). Reconstructive education and the road
to social justice: The case of post-colonial teacher education in Namibia,
International Journal of Leadership in Education, 2(3) 149-164.
Dale, R. (1989). The state and education policy. Milton Keynes, UK: Open University
Press.
Damanik, C. (2014, February, 19). Pendidikan nasional tak tentu arah. Kompas. Retrieved
March 22, 2014, from
http://nasional.kompas.com/read/2014/02/19/0836032/Pendidikan.Nasional.Tak.T
entu.Arah
Dardjowidjojo, S. (2001). Cultural constraints in the implementation of learner autonomy:
The case in Indonesia. Journal of Southeast Asian Education, 2 (2), 309-322.
Darling, J. (1994). Child-centered education and its critic, London, UK: Paul Chapman
Publishing Ltd.
Darling-Hammond, L. (1998). Policy and change: Getting beyond bureaucracy. In A.
Hargreaves, A. Liebermen, M. Fullan & D. Hopkins (Eds). International
handbook of educational change (pp. 642-667). Dordrecht, TN: Kluwer
Academic.
Darling-Hammond, L. (1999). Educating teachers for the next century: rethinking practice
and policy. In G. A. Griffin (Ed.) The Education of Teachers (pp. 221—256),
Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Darling-Hammond, L., & McLaughlin, M.W. (1995). Policies that support professional
development in an era of reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 76 (8), 597-605.
Datnow, A., & Castellano. M. (2000). Teachers‘ responses to success for all: How beliefs,
experiences, and adaptations shape implementation. American Educational
Research Journal, 37(3), 775-799.
Datta, A., Jones, H., Febriany, V., Harris, D., Dewi, R. K., Wild, L., & Young, J. (2011).
The political economy of policy-making in Indonesia: Opportunities for improving
the demand for and use of knowledge. London, UK: Overseas Development
Institute.
Day, C. (2000). Stories of change and professional development: the costs of
commitment, In C. Day, A. Fernandez, T.E. Hauge, and J. Miller (Eds.), The Life
and Work of Teachers: International Perspectices in Changing Times. (pp.109-
329
129) London, UK: Falmer.
Delamont, S. (1995). Teachers as artists. In Anderson, L. W. (Ed.). International
encyclopedia of teaching and teacher education (2nd ed.). (pp. 6-8). London, UK:
Pergamon Press.
Dembélé, M. & Schwille, J. (2007). Accountability in the context of teacher
empowerment: the Guinean experience. In M.T. Tatto (Ed.), Reforming Teaching
Globally. Oxford, UK: Symposium Publications.
Denzin, N.K and Lincoln, Y.S. (1998). Collecting and interpreting qualitative materials.
London, UK: Sage.
Denzin, N.K. & Lincoln, Y.S. (2000). The discipline and practice of qualitative research.
In N.K. Denzin, & Y.S. Lincoln (eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 1-
28). Thousand Oak, CA: Sage.
Denzin, N.K., & Lincoln, Y.S. (1998). The landscape of qualitative research: Theories
and issues. London, UK: Sage.
Dhakidae, D. (2003). Cendikiawan dan kekuasaan. Jakarta, DKI: PT Gramedia Pustaka
Utama.
Doddington, C. & Hilton, M. (2007). Child-Centred education: Reviving the creative
tradition. London, UK: Sage.
Dorfman, P.W., & House, R.J. (2004). Cultural influences on organizational leadership;
Literature review, theoretical rationale, and GLOBE project goals. In R. House, P.
Hanges, M. Javidan, P. Dorfman, & V. Gupta (Eds.). Culture, Leadership, and
Organizations: The GLOBE Study of 62 Societies. pp.51-73. London, UK: Sage.
Dryzek, J.S. (1996), Democracy in capitalist time: Ideals, limits, and struggle. New York,
NY: Oxford University Press.
Eggen, P. D. & Kauchak, D. P. (2001). Strategies for teachers: Teaching content and
thinking skills. (4th
ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Elmore, R. (1980). Backward mapping: Implementation research and policy decisions.
Political science quarterly, 94(4).
Elmore, R. (1997). The origin and problems of education reforms in USA. In W. M.
Cummings, & N. F. MacGinn (Eds.), International handbook of education and
development: Preparing schools, students and nations for 21st century. Oxford,
UK: Pergamon.
Elyda, C. (2014, September 5).War on graft to go on in the city: Ahok, The Jakarta Post.
Retrieved September, 21, 2014, from
http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2014/09/05/war-graft-go-city-ahok.html
Emqi, M.F., (2010). Implementasi pembelajaran aktif, kreatif, efektif dan menyenangkan
pada mata pelajaran pendidikan agama Islam. [Electrovic version]. Unpublished
undergraduate theses. Universitas Negeri Malang.
Evans, D. (1995). How to write a better thesis or report. Carlton, VIC: Melbourne
University Press.
Evans, D., Tate, S., Navarro, R., Nicholls, (2009). Teacher education and professional
development in Indonesia: A gap analysis. A report for USAID/Indonesia under
task order 26 of the global evaluation and monitoring (GEM II), BPE, EDH-E-25-
330
08-0003-00: The Aguirre division of JBS International Inc.
Evayanti, R. (2010). Implementasi pembelajaran aktif, kreatif, efektif,dan menyenangkan
(PAKEM) pada mata pelajaran Bahasa Indonesia Kelas V di Madrasah Ibtidaiyah
Ma‘arif Mayak Tonatan Kulonprogo tahun ajaran 2008-2009. [Electrnic version].
Unpublished undergraduate theses. STAIN Ponorogo. Retrieved May, 4, 2013
from http://www.library-
stainponorogo.net/gdl42/gdl.php?mod=browse&op=read&id=stainpress-11111-
robaisyaro-242
Eyles, J. & Smith, D. (1988). Qualitative methods in human geography. Cambridge,
UK: Polity Press.
Farver, J.A.M.. & Wimbarti, S. (1995), Indonesian children's play with their mothers and
older siblings. Child Development, 66. 1493–1503.
Fink, D., & Stoll, L. (1998). Educational change: easier said than done. In A.
Hargreaves, A. Liebermen, M. Fullan & D. Hopkins (Eds). International
Handbook of Educational Change (pp. 297-321). Dordrecht, TN: Kluwer
Academic Publishers.
Fontana, A., & Frey, J.H. (2000). The interview: From structured questions to negotiated
text. In K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln, (Eds.). Handbook of qualitative research (2nd
ed.) (pp. 645-672). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
French, D. C., Pidada, S., & Victor, A. (2005). Friendships of Indonesian and United
States youth. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 29, 304-313.
Fullan, M. ( l991). The new meaning of educational change. London, UK: Cassell.
Fullan, M. (1982). The Meaning of Educational Change; Columbia University, New
York, NY: Teachers' College Press.
Fullan, M. (1994). Coordinating top-down and bottom-up strategies for educational
reform. In R. Elmore & S. H. Fuhrman (Eds.), The governance of curriculum:
1994 yearbook of the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development
(pp. 186-202). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development
Fullan, M. (2001). The new meaning of educational change (3rd ed.). London, UK:
Cassell.
Fuller, B., & Clarke, P. (1994). Raising school effects while ignoring culture – Local
conditions and the influence of classroom tools, rules, and pedagogy. Review of
Educational Research, 64(l), 119-157.
Gardner, C. M. (2006). ―An opportunity missed‖? Trajectories of one education policy in
the Tasmania Government school system. Unpublished Thesis. University of
Tasmania
Gardner, R. (1990). The Cianjur project. In V. D. Rust & P. Dalin (Eds.), Teachers and
teaching in the developing world. (pp. 83-93). New York, NY: Garland Publishing
Inc.
Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures: Selected essays. New York, NY: Basic
Books.
Ginsberg, L.H., Nackerud, L. & Larrison, C.R. (2004). Human biology for social workers,
331
Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
Ginsburg, M. (2010). Improving educational quality through active-learning pedagogies:
A comparison of five case studies. Educational Research, 1(3), 62-74.
Gipps, C. & MacGilchrist, B. (1999). Primary school learners. In P. Mortimore, (Ed.)
Understanding pedagogy and its impact on learning (pp.52-55). London, UK:
Paul Chapman.
Giroux, H.A. (1983). Theory and resistance in education: A pedagogy for the opposition.
South Hadley, MA: Bergin & Garvey.
Goodson, I. F. (1997). The life and work of teachers. In B. J. Biddle, T. L Good & I. F.
Goodson (Eds.), International handbook of teachers and teaching (pp. 135- 152).
Dordrecht, TN: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Government of Indonesia. (1995). Pedoman pengelolaan gugus sekolah. Jakarta, DKI:
Departemen Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan, Direktorat Jenderal Pendidikan Dasar
dan Mengengah, Direktorat Pendidikan Dasar.
Government of Indonesia. (2003). Undang-Undang Republik Indonesia nomor 20 tahun
2003 tentang sistem pendidikan nasional.
Government of Indonesia. (2005a). Peraturan presiden Republik Indonesia, nomor 7
tahun 2005, tentang rencana pembangunan jangka menengah nasional tahun
2004 - 2009
Government of Indonesia. (2005b). Peraturan pemerintah Republik Indonesia nomor 19
tahun 2005 tentang standar nasional pendidikan.
Government of Indonesia. (2005c). Undang-Undang Republik Indonesia nomor 14 tahun
2005 tentang guru dan dosen.
Government of Indonesia. (2007). Peraturan pemerintah Republik Indonesia nomor 38
tahun 2007 tentang pembagian urusuan pemerintahan antara pemerintah,
pemerintah daerah provinsi, dan pemerintah daerah kabupaten/kota.
Government of Indonesia. (2008). Peraturan pemerintah Republik Indonesia nomor 47
tahun 2008 tentang wajib belajar.
Government of Indonesia. (2008). Peraturan pemerintah Republik Indonesia Nomor 48
tahun 2008 tentang pendanaan pendidikan.
Greene, J.C. (2000). Understanding social program through evaluation. In N. K. Denzin &
Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 279-313). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Griffin, M. (1999). Training of trainers. Journal of Staff Development, 20(3), 52-53.
Guthrie, G. (1986). Current research in developing countries: The impact of curriculum
reform on teaching. In Teaching and teacher education, 2(1), 81-89.
Guthrie, G. (1990). To the defence of traditional teaching in lesser developed countries. In
V. D. Rust & P. Dailn (Eds.) Teachers and teaching in the developing world. New
York, NY: Garland Publishing.
Guthrie, G. (2011). The progressive education fallacy in developing countries: In favour
of formalism. New York, NY: Springer
Habermas, J. (1990). Moral consciousness and communicative action. Cambridge,
332
MA: MIT Press.
Hall, G. E., & Hord, S. M. (1984). A framework for analysing what change facilitators do;
The intervention taxonomy. Knowledge: Creation, Diffusion, Utilization, 5(3),
275-307.
Hall, G. E., & Hord, S. M. (1987). Change in schools: Facilitating the process.
Albany, NY: Sunny Press.
Hallinger, P. (2005). Making education reform happen: is there an ―Asian‖ way? Paper
presented at the National Colloquium on Educational Management and
Leadership, Shah Alam, Selangor, Malaysia.
Hallinger, P., & Kantamara, P. (2001). Exploring the cultural context of school
improvement in Thailand. School Effectiveness and School Improvement 12(4),
385-408.
Hallinger, P., & Leithwood, K, (1996). Culture and educational administration: A case of
finding out what you don't know you don't know. Journal of Educational
Administration, 34(5), 98-115.
Hammersley, M. (1992). What's wrong with ethnography?: Methodological explorations.
London, UK: Routledge.
Hammersley, M. (1993). Social research: Philosophy, politics and practice. London,
UK: Sage.
Hart, C. (1998). Doing a literature review: Releasing the social science research
imagination. London, UK: Sage.
Hasan, A.N. (2009). Implementasi pembelajaran hakiki dengan pendekantan tematik
pada Kurikulum Tingkat Satuan Pendidikan: Studi pada Gugus II Gamtufkange
Tidore Maluku Utara. Unpublished thesis, Islamic State University of Yogyakarta.
Hattie, J. (2008). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to
achievement, New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.
Havelock, R. G. & Huberman, A. M. (1977). Solving educational problem: The theory
and reality of innovation in developing countries. Paris, France: United Nations
Educational Scientific and Cultural Organisation.
Heaton, J. (2004). Reworking qualitative data. London, UK: Sage.
Hendri, F. (2013, November 12). Ironi korupsi pendidikan. Kompas, p. 61
Hermkens, A. & Timmer, J. (2011). Conflicting states: Violent politics in North Maluku,
Indonesia. Etnofoor, State/Violence 23(2), 57-77.
Heyward M. & Sopantini. (2013). Indonesia: the challenges of quality and equity in
education. In L. Symaco (Ed.), Education in South-East Asia (pp.71-92).
London, UK: Bloomsbury.
Heyward, M. (2004). Intercultural literacy and the international school. Unpublished
doctoral thesis [Electronic version]. Retrieved from
http://eprints.utas.edu.au/423/1/01FrontMatter.pdf
Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind, Maidenhead, UK:
McGraw-Hill.
Hofstede, G., & Hofstede G. J. (2005). Cultures and organizations: Software for the mind
333
(2nd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Holmes, D. H., Futrell, M. H. Christie, J. L. & Cushman, E. J. (1995). School
restructuring: Meeting teachers‘ professional development needs. Paper presented
at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San
Francisco, CA.
Hopkins, D., & Levin, B. (2000). Government policy and school development. School
Leadership and Management, 20(1), I5-39.
Horowitz, D. L. (1989a). Cause and consequence in public policy theory: Ethnic policy
and system transformation in Malaysia. Policy Sciences, 22(3/4), 249-287.
Horowitz, D. L. (1989b). Is there a third-world policy process? Policy Sciences, 22(3/4),
197-212.
House, E. R. & McQuillan, P. J. (1998) Three perspectives on school reform. In A.
Hargreaves, A. Lieberman, M. Fullan, & D. Hopkins (Eds.) International
handbook of educational change (pp.198-213). Dordrecht, TN: Kluwer Academic
Publishers.
House, E. R. (1979). Technology versus craft; A ten year perspective on innovation.
Journal of Curriculum Studies, 11(1), 1-16.
Howlett, M., & Ramesh, M. (1995). Studying public policy: Policy cycles and policy
subsystems. Oxford, UK: Oxford University.
Hoyle, E. (1995). Teachers as professionals. In Anderson, L. W. (Ed.). International
encyclopedia of teaching and teacher education (2nd ed.) (pp. 11-15). London,
UK: Pergamon Press.
Iemjinda, Meechai. (1998). The role of textbooks in English as a foreign language
classroom; a case study in Thailand secondary & post-compulsory education,
unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Tasmania.
Ingvarson, L. (1994). Setting standards for teaching: An agenda for the profession. in F.
Crowther, B. Caldwell, J. Chapman. G. Lakomski & D. Ogilvie (Eds.), The
workplace in education: Australian perspective (pp. 157-176). Sydney, NSW:
Edward Arnold.
International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA). (2008).
TIMSS 2007 International Mathematics and Science Reports. Boston, MA:
TIMSS and PIRLS International Study Center, Lynch School of Education,
Boston College. Retrieved October 3, 2011 from
http://timss.bc.edu/timss2007/intl_reports.html
Jaensch, D. (1997). The politics of Australia (2nd
ed.). South Yarra, VIC: Macmillan
Education Australia.
Jalal, F. (2011). Teacher Reforms in Indonesia. International teachers conference and
education exhibition, 4 February 2011. Jakarta, DKI.
Jalinus, N. (1997) A study of vocational teachers implementing an innovation (Kurikulum
SMK 1994) in technical high schools in Padang and Bukit Tinggi West Sumatera.
Unpublished Master Thesis: University of Tasmania.
Jatmiko, Y. S. (2004). Pendidikan pemerdekaan: Catatan sejarah perjalanan SDK
Eksperimen Mangunan YB Mangunwijaya. Yogyakarta, DIY: Dinamika Edukasi
334
Dasar Misereor/KZE.
Joni, T. R. (2000). Memicu perbaikan pendidikan melalui kurikulum dalam kerangka
pikir desentralisasi. In Sindhunata (Ed.), Membuka masa depan anak-anak kita:
Mencari kurikulum pendidikan abad XXI. Yogyakarta, DIY: Kanisius.
Joyce, B., & Showers, B. (1995). Student achievement through staff development:
Fundamental of school renewal (2nd
ed.). New York, NY: Longman.
Joyce, B., & Weil, M. (1996). Model of teaching. (5th
ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn
& Bacon.
Kalijernih, F. (2005). The Indonesian Civic Ideal - Insider Perspectives. Unpublished
manuscript.
Kaluge, L, Setiasih, Tjahjono, H. (2004). The quality improvement of primary children
learning through a school-based programme in Indonesia. Surabaya, JATIM:
University of Surabaya.
Kelleher, J. (2003). A model for assessment-driven professional development. Phi Delta
Kappan, 84(10), 751-756.
Killen, R. (2003). Effective teaching strategies: Lessons from research and practice. (3rd
ed.). Tuggerah, NSW: Social Science Press.
Kincheloe, J.L. & McLaren, P. (2000). Rethinking critical theory and qualitative
research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative
research (pp. 279-313). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Klemperer, A., Theisens, H., Kaiser, F. (2001). Dancing in the dark: The relationship
between policy research and policy making in dutch higher education.
Comparative Education Review, 45(2), 197-219.
Klette, K. (2000). Working-time blues: How Norwegian teachers experience
restructuring in education, In C. Day; A. Fernandez; T.E. Hauge & J.
Møller (Eds.), The Life and work of teachers: International perspectives in
changing times. (pp. 146-159). London, UK: Falmer.
Knapp, M.S. (1997). Between systemic reforms and the mathematics and science
classroom: The dynamics of innovation, implementation, and professional
learning. Review of Educational Research, 67(2), 227-226.
Koentjaraningrat. (1985). Metode-metode penelitian masyarakat, Jakarta, DKI: Gramedia.
Kristiansen, S. & S. Pratikno, S. (2006). Decentralizing education in Indonesia,
International Journal of Educational Development, 26, 513–531
Leigh, B. (1999). Learning and knowing boundaries. Sojourn, 14(No. 1), 34-56.
Leu E. & Price-Rom A. (2006). Quality education and teacher learning: A review of the
literature. Washington, DC: United States Agency for International Development.
Leu, E. (2004). The patterns and purposes of school-based and cluster teacher
professional development programs. EQUIP1 Working Paper No.2. Washington,
DC: U.S. Agency for International Development.
Lewis, B. D., & Chakeri, J. (2004). Central development spending in the regions post-
decentralisation. Bulletin of Indonesian Economic Studies, 40(3), 379–394.
Lieberman, A. (1998). The growth of educational change as a field of study:
335
Understanding its roots and branches. In A. Hargreaves, A. Lieberman, M. Fullan,
& D. Hopkins (Eds.) International handbook of educational change (pp.13-20).
Dordrecht, TN: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (2000). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and
emerging confluences. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of
qualitative research (2nd ed.) (pp. 163-188). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Little, J.W. (1992) Teacher development and educational policy. In Fullan, M. &
Hargreaves, A. (Eds.) Teacher develoment and educational change. London, UK:
Falmer Press.
Little, J.W. (2001). Professional development in pursuit of school reform. In A.
Lieberman & L. Miller (Eds.), Teachers Caught in the Action: Professional
Development that Matters (pp. 23-44). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Loucks-Horsley, S., & Matsumoto, C. (1999). Research on professional development for
teachers of mathematics and science: The state of the scene. School Science and
Mathematics, 99 (5), 258-271
Louis, K. S., Toole, J., & Hargreaves, A. (1999). Rethinking school improvement. ln J.
Murphy & K. S. Louis (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational
administration (2nd
ed.) (pp. 251-276). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
MacNeil, D.J. (2004). School and cluster-based teacher professional development:
bringing teacher learning to the schools. Working Paper No.1 under EQUIP1‘s
Study of School-based Teacher Inservice Programs and Clustering of Schools.
Washington, DC: World Education, Inc.
Magnis-Suseno, F. (1993). Etika Jawa: Sebuah analisi falsafi tentang kebijaksanaan
hidup Jawa. Jakarta, DKI: PT Gramedia Pustaka Utama.
Magnis-Suseno, F. (1997). Javanese ethnics and world-view: The Javanese idea of good
life. Jakarta, DKI: PT Gramedia Pustaka Utama.
Maguire, M., & Ball, S. (1994). Researching politics and the politics of research: Recent
qualitative studies in the UK. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in
Education, 7(3), 269-285.
Malcolm, H., McLean, J., Tanuputra, G., & Harlen, W. (2001). Active learning through
professional support (ALPS) project, Indonesia 1988-1995: London, UK: DFID.
Mangunwijaya, Y.B. (2003). Impian dari Yogyakarta: Kumpulan esai masalah
pendidikan, Jakarta, DKI: Buku Kompas.
Markus, H.R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and self: Implication for cognition,
emotion, and motivation, Psychological Review, 98, 224-253.
Marsh, C. & Willis, G. (2003). Curriculum: Alternative approaches, ongoing issues.
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.
Marsh, C. (2004). Becoming a teacher: Knowledge, skills and issues (3rd
Ed.). French
Forest, NSW: Pearson Education Australia.
Mayer, R.E. (2004). Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning?:
The case for guided methods of instruction. American Psychologist, 59, 14-19.
McInerney, D.M., & McInerney, V. (1998). Educational psychology: Constructing
336
learning. (2nd
ed.). Sydney, NSW: Prentice Hall.
Megahed, N., Ginsburg, M., Abdellah. A., & Zohry, A. (2010). Active-learning
pedagogies as a reform initiative: The case of Egypt. Retrieved August 6, 2003,
from www.equip123.net/docs/E1-ActiveLearningPedagogy-Egypt.pdf
Merriam, S.B. (1997). Qualitative research and case study applications in education:
Revised and expanded from case study research in education (2nd ed.). San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded
sourcebook. (2nd
ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Ministry of National Education. (1993). Pedoman pembinaan profesional guru sekolah
dasar. Jakarta, DKI: Menteri Pendidkan dan Kebudayaan.
Ministry of National Education. (2002). Keputusan menteri pendidikan nasional Republik
Indonesia nomor 044/U/2002 tentang dewan pendidikan dan komite sekolah
Jakarta, DKI: Menteri Pendidkan dan Kebudayaan.
Ministry of National Education. (2005). Rencana strategis, Departemen Pendidikan
Nasional, tahun 2005 – 2009, Retrieved November 17, 2013, from
http://atdikbudlondon.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/renstra_kemdikbud_2010-
2014.pdf
Ministry of National Education. (2006a). Fact Sheet. Retrieved September 15, 2006, from
http://www.depdiknas.go.id/statistik/thn04-05/RSP_0405_files/sheet003.htm
Ministry of National Education. (2006b). Peraturan menteri pendidikan nasional
Republik Indonesia nomor 22 tahun 2007 tentang Standar Isi untuk satuan
pendidikan dasar dan mengengah.
Ministry of National Education. (2006c). Peraturan menteri pendidikan nasional
Republik Indonesia nomor 23 tahun 2007 tentang Standar Kompetensi Lulusan
untuk satuan pendidikan dasar dan mengengah.
Ministry of National Education. (2006d). Peraturan menteri pendidikan nasional
Republik Indonesia nomor 24 tahun 2007 tentang pelaksanaan peraturan menteri
pendidikan nasional nomor 22 tahun 2006 tentang Standar Isi untuk satuan
pendidikan dasar dan mengengah dan peraturan menteri pendidikan nasional
Republik Indonesia nomor 23 tahun 2007 tentang pelaksanaan peraturan menteri
pendidikan nasional nomor 22 tahun 2006 tentang Standar Kompetensi Lulusan
untuk satuan pendidikan dasar dan mengengah.
Ministry of National Education. (2007a). Rencana strategis departemen pendidikan
nasional 2005-2009, Jakarta, DKI: Pusat Informasi dan Humas, Departemen
Pendidikan Nasional.
Ministry of National Education. (2007b). Laporan umum pelaksanaan pendampingan dan
monitoring satuan pendidikan di 33 kabupaten/kota pada 33 provinsi. Jakarta,
DKI: Badan Penelitian dan Pengembangan, Pusat Kurikulum.
Ministry of National Education. (2007c). Laporan hasil pemantauan pelaksanaan Standar
Isi dan Standar Kompetensi Lulusan. Abstrak Masing-Masing Provinsi. Jakarta:
Badan Penelitian dan Pengembanan, Pusat Kurikulum.
Ministry of National Education. (2007d). Peraturan menteri pendidikan nasional
Republik Indonesia nomor 41 tahun 2007 Tentang Standar Proses.
337
Ministry of National Education. (2007e). Peraturan menteri pendidikan nasional
Republik Indonesia nomor 12 tahun 2007 tentang Standar Pengawas
Sekolah/Madrasah
Ministry of National Education. (2012). Pembinaan dan pengembangan profesi guru,
buku 1: Pedoman pengelolaan pengembangan keprofesian bekerlanjutan,
Retrieved 30th October, 2013, from http://www.slideshare.net/guruonline/buku-1-
pedoman-pengelolaan-pengembangan-keprofesian-berkelanjutan.
Ministry of National Education. (2013). Overview of the education sector in Indonesia
2012: Achievements and challenges, Jakarta, DKI: Ministry of Education and
Culture.
Ministry of Religious Affairs. (2006). Gambaran umum data pendidikan pada madrasah
tahun pelajaran 2004–2005. Retrieved, August 8, 2006, from
http://www.bagais.go.id/bookletmad05/
Mitchell, J. (1983) ‗Case and situational analysis‘, Sociological Review, 31(2), 187–211.
Mizrachi, A., Padilla, A., & Susuwele-Banda, W. (2010). Active-learning pedagogies as a
reform initiative: The case of Malawi. EQUIP1 Working Paper. Washington, DC:
U.S. Agency for International Development.
Morgan, N. & Saxton, J. (1994) Asking better questions, models, techniques and
classroom activities for engaging students in learning. Markham, Ontario,
Canada: Pembroke.
Morris, D. R. (1997). A drift in the sea of innovations: a response to Alexander, Murphy,
and Woods. Educational Researcher, 26(4), 22-26.
Morris, P. (2000). The commissioning and decommissioning of curriculum reforms: The
career of the Target Oriented Curriculum. In B. Adamson, T. Kwan & K. Chan.
(Eds.) Changing curriculum: The impact of reform on primary schooling in Hong
Kong. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.
Mourshed, M., Choijioke, C, & Barber, M. (2010). How the world‘s most improved
school systems keep getting better. New York, NY: McKinsey & Company.
Mulder, N. (1994). Inside Indonesian society: An interpretation of cultural change in
Java. Bangkok, Thailand: Mr. Suk Soongwang.
National Statistics Centre. (2010). Sensus penduduk 2010. Retrieved November 17, 2013.
from http://sp2010.bps.go.id/
Nielsen, H. D. (1998). Reforms to teacher education in Indonesia: Does more mean
better? Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 18, 9-25.
Noesjirwan, J. (1978). A rule-based analysis of cultural differences in social behaviour:
Indonesia and Australia. International Journal of Psychology, 13(4), 305-316.
O‘Sullivan, M. C. (2002). Reform implementation and the realities within which teachers
work: a Namibian case study. Compare, 32(2), 219-237.
Oerter, R., Oerter, R. M., Agostiani, H., Kim, H.O., & Wibowo, S, (1996). The concept of
human nature in East Asia: Etic and emic characteristics. Culture and Psychology,
2, 9-51.
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2010). PISA 2009.
Results: Executive Summary. Retrieved October 3, 2011 from
338
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/54/12/46643496.pdf
Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Peet, R. (1991). Global capitalism: Theories of societal development, NewYork, NY:
Routledge.
Pekerti, A. & Sendjaja. (2008). The Impact of national culture on leadership: A case of
servant leadership, Proceedings from Business And Information Conference,
Seoul, Korea, (47-47).
Permani, R. (2011, February 26). Aid to Indonesian Islamic schools helps undermine
terrorism. East Asia Forum Web. Retrieved April 25, 2013 from
http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2011/02/26/aid-to-indonesian-islamic-schools-
helps-undermine-terrorism/
Peters, R. S. (1977). Education and the education of teachers. London, UK: Routledge &
Kegan Paul.
Peters, R. S. (Ed.). (1968). Perspectives on Plowden. London, UK: Routledge.
Phillips, D. & Ochs, K. (2004). Education policy borrowing: Historical perspectives.
Oxford, UK: Symposium Books.
Phillips, D. (2009). Aspects of educational transfer. In R. Cowen & A. M. Kazamias
(Eds.), International handbook of comparative education (pp. 1061-1078).
Dordrecht, TN: Springer.
Pierce, D. & Hunsanker, W. (1996). Professional development for the teacher, of the
teacher, and by the teacher. Education Chula Vista, 117, 101-105.
Pradipto, Y. D. (2007). Belajar sejati vs kurikulum nasional: Kontestasi kekuasaan dalam
pendidikan dasar. Yogyakarta, DIY: Kanisius.
Price-Rom, A., & Sainazarov, K. (2010). Active-Learning pedagogies as a reform
initiative: The case of Kyrgyzstan. Retrieved 6 August, 2013 from
www.equip123.net/docs/e1-ActiveLearningSynthesis.pdf
Prince, M. (2004). Does active learning work? A review of the research. Journal of
Engineering Education, 93(3), 223-231.
Pusat Kurikulum. (2007). Laporan pelaksanaan bantuan pofesional tim pengembangan
kurikulum (TPK) kabupaten/kota. Jakarta: Pusat Kurikulum Badan Penelitian dan
Pengembangan Departemen Pendidikan Nasional.
Raihani. (2007). Education reforms in Indonesia in the twenty-first century. International
Education Journal, 8(1), 172-183.
Ramalingam, B. (2013). Aid on the Edge of Chaos. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Reimers, E. V. (2003). Teacher Professional Development: An International Review of
Literature. Retrieved July, 2007, from http://www.unesco.org/iiep
Riddell, A. (2012). The effectiveness of foreign aid to education. Working Paper No.
2012/75. Finland: UNU World Institute for Development Economics Research.
Robinson, M. (1999). Initial teacher education in a changing South Africa: experiences,
reflections and challenges. Journal of Education for Teaching, 25(3), 191-201.
339
Rogers, E. M. (1995). Diffusion of Innovation (4th ed.). New York, NY: The Free Press.
Roggemann, K., & Shukri, M. (2010). Active learning pedagogies as a reform initiative:
The case of Jordan. Retrieved January 15, 2013, from
www.equip123.net/docs/E1-ActiveLearningPedagogy-Jorda.pdf
Rostow, W.W. (1960). Stages of economic growth, London, UK: Cambridge University
Press.
RTI International, (2013). Baseline Monitoring Report, Volume 3: An Assessment of Early
Grade Reading—How Well Children are Reading, Prepared for USAID/Indonesia,
RTI International, Research Triangle Park, NC.
RTI International. (2011). More Effective Decentralized Education Management and
Governance (DBE1) Final Report to USAID, December 2011, Research Triangle
Park, NC: RTI International.
Samuel, J. (1998). Changing lives in changing times: Pre-service teacher education in
poist-apartheid South Africa. Tesol Quartlery, 32(3), 576-585.
Sargent, T. C., & Hannum, E. (2009). Doing more with less: Teacher professional
learning communities in resource-constrained primary schools in rural China.
Journal of Teacher Education, 60, 258-276.
Schäfer, M. & Wilmot, D. (2012). Teacher education in post-apartheid South Africa:
Navigating a way through competing state and global imperatives for change.
Propsects. Quarterly review of comparative education, 42, 41-54.
Schriewer, J. (2000) Comparative education methodology in transition: towards a science
of complexity? In J. Schriewe (Ed.) Discourse Formation in Comparative
Education (pp. 3-54). Frankfurt, Germany: Internasionaler Verlag der
Wissenschaften.
Semiawan, C. (2003). Pendidikan, mutu pendidikan, dan peranan guru. In D. Supriadi
(Ed.), Guru di Indonesia: Pendidikan, pelatihan dan perjuangannya sejak zaman
kolonial hingga era reformasi. (pp.571-591). Jakarta, DKI: Direktorat Tenaga
Kependidikan, Direktorat Jenderal Pendidikan Dasar dan Menengah, Departemen
Pendidikan Nasional.
Setiawan, T.S. (2014, September 11). Serikat Guru: Jokowi Jangan Pilih Nuh Jadi Menteri,
Tempo, Retreived September 21, 2014, from https://id.berita.yahoo.com/serikat-
guru-jokowi-jangan-pilih-nuh-jadi-menteri-050653456.html
Shaeffer, S. (2014). BOS Training: Its implementation, impact, and implications for the
Development of Indonesia‘s Education System. [An Independent Review -
Prepared for AusAID Indonesia June-July, 2013]. Retrieved April 25, 2013 from
http://aid.dfat.gov.au/publications/Pages/bos-training-program-independent-
review.aspx
Sieber, P. & Mantel, C. (2012). The internationalization of teacher education: An
introduction. Prospects, 42, 5-15.
Singgih, T.S. (2007). Higher education reform in Indonesia at crossroad. Paper presented
at the Graduate School of Education and Human Development, Nagoya
University, Nagoya, Japan, 26 July 2007. Retrieved April, 25, 2012, from
luk.staff.ugm.ac.id/.../HEReform-Singgih.doc.
Sivan, A., Leung, R.W., Woon, C., & Kember, D. (2010). An implementation of active
340
learning and its effect on the quality of student learning. Innovations in education
and training international, 37(4), 381-389.
Smyth, J. (1998). Three rival versions and critique of teacher staff development. In A.
Hargreaves, A. Lieberman, M. Fullan, & D. Hopkins (Eds.) International
handbook of educational change (pp.1242- 1256). Dortrecht, TN: Kluwer
Academic Publishers.
Soedijarto, H., Thamrin, Karyadi, B. Siskandar, & Sumiyati. (2010). Sejarah Pusat
Kurikulum. Jakarta, DKI: Pusat Kurikulum, Badan Penelitian dan Pengembangan
Kementerian Pendidikan Nasional.
Soemarjan, S. (1975). The cultural background of the Indonesian businessman, Economy
& Finance Indonesia, 23(2), 95-100.
Somantire, H. (2009). Pendampingan pengembangan kurikulum tingkat satuan
pendidikan (KTSP). Retrieved October 2, 2009, from
http://www.puskur.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=71:herm
ana-s&catid=36:headline&Itemid=50
Sopantini. (2004). Kurikulum berbasis kompetensi. Jakarta, DKI: Save the Children
United Kingdom.
Spillane, J. P. (1996). School districts matter: Local educational authorities and state
instructional policy. Educational Policy, 10(1), 63-87.
Spillane, J. P., Reiser, B.J., & Reimer, T. (2002). Policy Implementation and Cognition:
Reframing and Refocusing Implementation. Review of Educational Research,
72(3), 387-431.
Srihartanto, E., (2007). Implementasi pembelajaran aktif, kreatif, dan menyenangkan,
studi kasus pada Sekolah Dasar Negeri I Wonogiri. [Electronic version].
Unpublished Masters theses . Universitas Sebelas Maret, Surakarta. Retrieved
May 4, 2013 from http://pasca.uns.ac.id/?p=60
Sroufe, G., Goertz, M.E., Herman, J., Yarger, S., Jackson, G.B., & Robinson, S.P. (1995).
The federal research agency: New opportunities and new challenges for
researchers. Educational Researcher, 24(2), 24-30.
Stake, R. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Stake, R. (2000). Case studies. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of
qualitative research (pp. 435-454). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Steiner-Khamsi, G., & Quist, H. (2000). The politics of educational borrowing:
Reopening the case of Achimota in British Ghana. Comparative Education
Review, 44(3), 272-299.
Stephen, D. (2007). Culture in education and development: Principles, practice and
policy. Oxford, UK: Symposium Books.
Suparno, P. (2004), Guru demokratis di era reformasi pendidikan. Jakarta, DKI:
Gramedia Widiasarana Indonesia.
Supovitz, J.A. & Turner, H.M. (2000). The effects of professional development on
science teaching practices and classroom culture. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 37(9), 963-980.
Supovitz, J.A., Mayer, D.P., & Kahle, J.B. (2000). Promoting inquiry-based instructional
341
practice: The longitudinal impact of professional development in the context of
systemic reform. Educational Policy, 14(3), 331-356.
Supriadi, D. (Ed.). (2003). Guru di Indonesia: Pendidikan, pelatihan dan perjuangannya
sejak zaman kolonial hingga era reformasi. Jakarta, DKI: Direktorat Tenaga
Kependidikan, Direktorat Jenderal Pendidikan Dasar dan Menengah, Departemen
Pendidikan Nasional.
Surachmad, W. (2009). Pendidikan nasional: Strategi dan tragedi. Jakarta, DKI: Kompas
Gramedia.
Tabulawa, R. (1997). Pedagogical classroom practice and the social context: The case of
Botswana. International Journal of Educational Development, 17(2), 189-194.
Tabulawa, R.T. (2003). International aid agencies, learner-centred pedagogy, and political
democratization: A critique. Comparative Education, 39(1), 7-26.
Tangyong, A. F., Wahyudi, Gardner, R. and Hawes, H. (1989). Quality through support
for teachers: A case study from Indonesia. Jakarta, DKI: The Office of
Educational and Cultural Research and Development, Ministry of Education and
Culture and the Department of International and Comparative Education, Institute
of Education, University of London.
Taylor, B. M., Anderson, R. C., Au, K.H., & Raphael, T. E. (2000). Discretion in the
translation of research to policy: A case from beginning reading. Educational
Researcher, 29(6). 16-26.
Taylor, S., Rizvi, F., Lingard, B. & Henry, M. (1997). Educational policy and the politics
of change. London, UK: Routledge.
The Mitchell Group (2007), Final evaluation, managing basic education (MBE) Project,
Jakarta, DKI: USAID.
Toyamah, N. (2009). Teacher absentee levels and its influencing factors. [Electronic
version] Buletin SMERU, 28, 11–17. Retrieved October 3, 2011 from
http://www.smeru.or.id/newslet/2009/news28.pdf
Tyack, D. B., & Cuban, L. (1995). Tinkering toward utopia: A century of public school
reform. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
United Nations Education Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). (2011). EFA
global monitoring report 2011: Regional overview East Asia and the Pacific.
Retrieved October 3, 2011, from
http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0019/001917/191719E.pdf
United States Agency for International Development (USAID). (2012). Final evaluation
of USAID/Indonesia‘s decentralized basic education (DBE) project. Unpublished
report. Jakarta, DKI.
United States Agency for International Development. (2007). Study of Legal Framework
for the Indonesian Basic Education Sector. Report for Decentralized Basic
Education 1: Management and Governance. Research Triangle Park, NC: RTI
International.
Utomo, E. (2005). Challenges of curriculum reform in the context of decentralization:
The response of teachers to a competence-based curriculum (KBK) and its
implementation in schools. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of
Pittsburgh.
342
Van Der Werf, G., Creemers, B., De Jong, R. & Klaver, E. (2000). Evaluation of school
improvement through an educational effectiveness model: The case of Indonesia's
PEQIP project. Comparative Education Review, 44(3), 329 - 355.
Vasilis, P. & Malamatenios, C. (2009, May). Active learning: Teaching children to use
energy in Greece. Report for the Energy Behavioral Changes project. Retrieved
May 25, 2014 from
https://www.google.com/search?q=Active+learning%3A+Teaching+children
+to+use+energy+in+Greece.&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-
US:official&client=firefox-a&channel=sb
Vatikiotis, M. R. J. (1993). Indonesian politics under Suharto. London: Routledge.
Villegas-Reimers, E. & Reimers, F. (1996) Where are 60 million teachers? The missing
voice in educational reforms around the world. Prospects, 26(3), 469-492.
Villegas-Reimers, E. (2003). Teacher professional development: An international review
of literature. Paris, France: UNESCO International Institute of Educational
Planning.
Von Holdt, K. (2010). Nationalism, bureaucracy and the developmental state: The South
African case, South African Review of Sociology 41(1), 4-27.
Walker, A.D. & Cheng, Y.C. (1996). Professional development in Hong Kong primary
schools: Beliefs, practice, and change. Journal of Education for Teaching, 22(2),
197-212.
Warwick, D. & Reimers, F. (1995). Hope or despair?: Learning in Pakistan's primary
schools. Westport, CT: Praeger.
Weaver-Hightower, M. B., (2008). An ecology metaphor for educational policy analysis:
A call to complexity. Educational Researcher, 37, 153-167.
Wikapedia. (2013). Maluku Islands. Retrieved June, 30, 2013 from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maluku_Islands
Wikipedia. (2013). Maluku Islands. [Map] Retrieved Novermber 17, 2013, from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maluku_Islands
Wilson, C. (2005). The ethnic origins of religious conflict in North Maluku province,
Indonesia, 1999-2000 [Electronic version]. Indonesia (79), 69-91.
Windschitl, M. (2002). Framing constructivism in practices as the negotiation of dilemma:
An analysis of the conceptual, pedagogical, cultural, and political challenges
facing teachers. Review of Educational Research, 72(2), 131-175.
Wolcott, H. F. (1994). Transforming qualitative data: Description, analysis, and
interpretation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
World Bank. (2004). Education in Indonesia: Managing the transition to
decentralization. Indonesian education sector review (Vol. 1). Jakarta, DKI:
World Bank.
World Bank. (2005). Education in Indonesian: managing the transition to
decentralization, Vol. 2. (Human Development Sector Reports East Asia and the
Pacific Region. The World Bank. June 2005). Jakarta, DKI: World Bank.
World Bank. (2010). Transforming Indonesia‘s teaching force: From per-service
training to retirement. producing and maintaining a high-quality, efficient, and
343
motivated workforce (Vol. 2), Report No. 53732-ID. Jakarta, DKI: World Bank.
World Bank. (2011). World development indicators. Washington, DC: World Bank.
World Bank. (2013). FY2013-2015 Country partnership strategy for Indonesia, Jakarta,
DKI: World Bank.
World Bank. (in press). Teacher reform in Indonesia: the role of poltics and evidence in
policy making (conference edition, unedited). Jakarta, DKI: World Bank.
Yin, R.K. (1989). Case study research: Design and methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Yin, R.K. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods (2nd ed.). Beverly Hills, CA:
Sage.
Yin, R.K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed.). Beverly Hills,
CA: Sage.
Young, M.S. (2010). A case of the global-local dialectic: Decentralization and teacher
training in Banten, Indonesia. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Florida State
University.
Yulaelawati, E. (1996). The implementation of educational changes in Indonesian
primary schools. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of
Queensland.
Zulfikar, T. (2009). The making of Indonesian education: An overview on empowering
Indonesian teachers, Journal of Indonesian Social Sciences and Humanities, 2, 13-
39.
344
Appendix 1: Ethics Approval
==============Original message text===============
From: Marilyn Knott <[email protected]>
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 10:25:59 +1100 Subject: Ethics Application Approved: H9258 The big puzzle: Reform in Indonesian primary education. A study of contributing factors to successful curriculum implementation. Dear Professor Williamson Ethics Ref No: H9258 Project title: The big puzzle: Reform in Indonesian primary education. A study of contributing factors to successful curriculum implementation. This Ethics Minimal Risk application has been approved. A signed copy of the formal approval letter will be sent to the Chief Investigator/Supervisor by mail in the next few days. The Committee wish you all the best with the project. Kind regards Marilyn Knott -- Marilyn Knott Ethics Officer - Social Sciences Office of Research Services University of Tasmania Private Bag 01 Hobart TAS 7001 Phone: (03) 6226 2764 Fax: (03) 6226 2765 Email: [email protected] Web: http://www.research.utas.edu.au/ ===========End of original message text===========
==============Original message text=============== On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 9:38:26 +1100 Clive Skilbeck wrote: Dear Sopantini,
345
Thank you for your Minimal Risk application for ethics approval. The application is approved. Good luck with the project. Regards, Clive Skilbeck Chair, Tasmania Social Sciences Human Research Ethics Committee Clive Skilbeck Associate Professor in Clinical Psychology University of Tasmania Sandy Bay, Hobart 7001 TASMANIA tel: +61-3-6226-7459 fax: +61-3-6226-2883 ===========End of original message text===========
346
Private Box 66
HOBART TAS, 7001
Telephone: (03) 6226 2546
Facsimile (03) 6226 2569
FACULTY OF EDUCATION
Appendix 2: Invitation letter for study participants
This letter will be translated into Indonesian by an accredited NAATI translator and both the English
version and its translated version will be sent to the heads of district education offices.
The Big Puzzle: Reform in Indonesian Primary Education – A Study of Contributing Factors to
Successful Curriculum Implementation
Invitation Letter
January, 2006
Insert names and address details
Dear ………….
We are writing to draw your attention to a research initiative that we would like one Sekolah Negeri (a state
school), and all principals and teachers in the cluster of this school to be involved with.
The aim of the project is to gather information about the factors that assist in the successful
implementation of new curriculum in Indonesian primary school. This is an attempt to
examine whether the new competency-based curriculum has had any impact and to identify
challenges associated with its implementation. An information sheet, which outlines the
project in details and a brief CV of Ms Sopantini Heyward as a researcher are attached for
your information and personal records.
Recently, through ministerial decrees all primary schools in Indonesia have been required to
adopt the new competency-based curriculum. However, there have been reports of challenges
faced by principals and teachers to implement this curriculum. It is, therefore, timely and
relevant to examine and identify the challenges associated with its implementation.
347
The major contribution the project will make will be derived from the two case study schools
and this will come in the form of information about processes and activities involved in the
implementation and the ways these challenges are faced and resolved.
The great diversity of Indonesian primary schools context necessitates that this research be conducted in several
regions in the country. Some teachers and principals from the districts of Bantaeng or Pangkep - South Sulawesi,
Lombok Barat, Lombok, and Malang - East Java were selected. It is anticipated that data collection will begin in
April 2007 and finish in December 2007. The outcomes of this research will assist in informing policy and
planning of reform in primary schools in Indonesia in particular and adding a new perspective in the literature of
school reform from the context of Indonesia, which is often missing internationally.
Briefly, the major part of the project data gathering involves class observation, interviews,
and document analysis. More information about this project is explained in the attached
information sheet.
As the protocol in your office dictates, we would like your assistance to invite the principals
of this particular school and other principals from the cluster this school belong to, to
participate in this research.
Should they be interested in participating, we would like you to forward an information sheet
and a consent form to these principals from whom their teachers will be asked to participate
in this project.
We will contact you in the near future to canvass these schools potential involvement and
discuss the project further.
We hope to provide some valuable information about implementation process and challenges
and the ways these challenges are resolved in relation to the new competency-based
curriculum. Therefore, your willingness to extend invitation to these principals is critical
and will contribute to this project.
Yours sincerely
Ms. Sopantini Heyward Prof. John Williamson
Ph. 62 (411) 830691 Ph. 61 (3) 6324 3339
348
Private Box 66
HOBART TAS, 7001
Telephone: (03) 6226 2546
Facsimile (03) 6226 2569
FACULTY OF EDUCATION
Appendix 3: Information sheet for study participants
This document will be translated into Indonesian by an accredited NAATI translator and both the
English and its translated versions will be sent to several education ministry units and directorates and
heads of district education offices.
The Big Puzzle: Reform in Indonesian Primary Education – A Study of Contributing Factors to
Successful Curriculum Implementation
INFORMATION SHEET
Purpose/Objectives of the Project
This project seeks to investigate and understand what factors assist in the successful
implementation of new curriculum in Indonesian primary schools.
Sopantini Heyward is undertaking the research as a doctoral candidate and the project is
under the supervision of Professor John Williamson from the Faculty of Education and
Professor Barbara Hatley from Faculty of Arts, University of Tasmania. Ms Heyward has
been working in education as teacher, principal and consultant. For more professional
background of Ms Heyward, see the attached CV.
Study Procedures and phases:
The design of the project involves several phases, with the main focus on the two case study schools.
The following briefly outline the phases:
Phase 1
This phase is an exploratory phase. The researcher will make various visits. Approximately a week will be spent
in each of the four districts of Bantaeng, South Sulawesi, West Lombok, Malang, East Java and Sleman,
Yogyakarta. School and school clusters visits, visits to various levels of education offices and agencies charged
with assisting schools to implement the new curriculum will be made during this phase. In this exploratory phase
selection of the case study schools will be made.
Phase 2.
In this phase, data collection through a survey of principal and teachers will be conducted at the school
clusters in which the two case study schools belong. The principals and teachers will be given
349
questionnaire forms to complete. The results from this survey will be analysed by using a university
approved software.
Phase 3 Data Collection at the two selected case study schools. At this phase the researcher will look at the practices of
teachers and principals to see whether they are congruent with their intentions or the policy and to examine the
extent to which teachers' stated beliefs and intentions align with the new curriculum policy, and to identify
technical, political, and cultural aspects that may influence the successful implementation. To collect data on
these, class observation, document analysis and interview will be conducted.
Phase 4
This phase is concerned with understanding the process accompanying the issuance of ministerial decrees which
provide the legal basis of the implementation of the new competency-based curriculum. Document analysis and
interviews with selected personnels from various agencies and bureaucrats from various education offices will
be conducted.
Contact for the project:
The overall management of the project is by a team of researchers from the Faculty of Education at the
University of Tasmania. Please contact any member of this team for additional information about the
project.
Ms Sopantini Heyward (Investigator )- (0411) 830691; [email protected]
Prof. John Williamson (Chief Investigator) - (03) 6324 3339; [email protected]
Costs:
There should be no costs incurred by the schools in participating in this project. Schools will not need to
provide relief at any stage of the project.
Time:
All data will be collected during the 2006/2007 academic year. Phases 1 and 2 involve two case study schools, several class observations and interviews, several observations of various school meetings. The most appropriate time for all of these will be negotiated with the schools. For Phase 3, the most appropriate time to conduct the interviews with bureaucrats and personnel from some education projects will be negotiated following the local protocol.
Confidentiality:
For data collected in the surveys, observations and interviews, all schools, teachers and students
involved in the project are guaranteed confidentiality. Only the investigators will have access to the
information collected. All information will be coded and no individual students, teachers, or their
schools will be named during the project or in any of the forthcoming reports. The interview will be
recorded and identified and will only be used for professional learning purposes. The data will not be
made available to any one other than the researcher or to the public. The data will be secured and stored
in the project‘s research office at the Faculty of Education‘s Hobart campus for a period of 5 years. After
this time they will be destroyed, or kept securely on the above premises if they are still needed.
350
Freedom to refuse or withdraw:
Participation in all aspects of this project is entirely voluntary. A school or teacher can refuse to
participate without any effects. Where a participant (school or teacher) elects to withdraw from the
study, the data supplied to date will also be withdrawn, if requested. Parent/guardians and students are
also free to withdraw the use of their child‘s work as data at any time during the study without the
students‘ academic record being affected.
Concerns or complaints:
This project received the ethical approval from the Human Research Ethics Committee (Tasmania)
Network. It also has the permission and support of the Department of Education. Concerns of an ethical
nature or complaints about the manner in which the project is conducted should be forwarded to Marilyn
Pugsley, , Executive Officer Human Research Ethics Committee (Tasmania) Network. Ph: (03) 6226
7479 or email: [email protected]
Results of investigation:
Teachers and schools can be given feedback if requested. Any research reports associated with the
project will be made available to your school.
Thank you for your assistance with this project.
John Williamson Sopantini Heyward
Chief Investigator Investigator
351
Private Box 66
HOBART TAS, 7001
Telephone: (03) 6226 2546
Facsimile (03) 6226 2569
FACULTY OF EDUCATION
Appendix 4: Consent form for study participants
This document will be translated into Indonesian by an accredited NAATI translator and both the
English and its translated versions will be sent to the heads of district education offices.
Consent Form
The Big Puzzle: Reform in Indonesian Primary Education – A Study of Contributing Factors to
Successful Curriculum Implementation
1. I have read and understood the 'Information Sheet' for this study.
2. The nature and possible effects of the study have been explained to me.
3. I understand that all research data will be securely stored on the University of Tasmania
premises for five years and will then be destroyed.
4. Any questions that I have asked have been answered to my satisfaction.
5. I agree that research data gathered from me for the study may be published provided that I
cannot be identified as a participant.
6. I understand that the researchers will maintain my identity
confidential and that any information I supply to the researcher(s)
will be used only for the purposes of the research.
7. I agree to participate in this investigation and understand that I may
withdraw at any time without any effect, and if I so wish, may request
that any data I have supplied to date be withdrawn from the research.
Name of Participant:
Signature: Date:
352
Statement by Investigator
I have explained the project & the implications of participation in it to this volunteer and
I believe that the consent is informed and that he/she understands the implications of
participation
If the Investigator has not had an opportunity to talk to participants prior to them participating,
the following must be ticked.
The participant has received the Information Sheet where my details have been provided
so participants have the opportunity to contact me prior to consenting to participate in
this project.
Name of Investigator Sopantini Heyward
Signature of
Investigator
Name of investigator : Sopantini Heyward
Signature of investigator _______________
Date ________________________________
353
Private Box 66
HOBART TAS, 7001
Telephone: (03) 6226 2546
Facsimile (03) 6226 2569
UN
IV
ER
SI
TY
O
F
TA
SM
AN
IA
FACULTY OF EDUCATION
Appendix 5: Notification letter sent to Indonesian Government
bodies
Notification Letter
January, 2007
Dear (insert name, and address)
I would like to advise that Ms Sopantini Heyward, a student in the School of Education at The
University of Tasmania, is undertaking research towards the completion of her doctoral thesis. The
title of her research is ‘The Big Puzzle: Reform in Indonesian Primary Schools - a Study of
Contributing Factors to Successful Curriculum Implementation’.
Ms Sopantini plans to be in Indonesia conducting field work for about six months beginning in early
March 2007. She plans to visit several government institutions, primary schools (state and private,
national-plus, and madrasah ibtidaiyah), in order to conduct surveys, undertake interviews, and hold
discussions and collect other relevant data.
Given the importance of Ms. Sopantini’s research for the development of Indonesian primary
education, your assistance and support for this activity would be highly appreciated. Confidentiality
will be upheld in this research work, complying with academic norms and rules.
Attach is a research information sheet and a brief CV of Ms Heyward for your reference.
If we can provide any further information, please do not hesitate to contact us.
354
Yours sincerely
Ms Megan Cavanagh-Russell Professor John Williamson
Dean and Head of School Chief Investigator
355
Private Box 66
HOBART TAS, 7001
Telephone: (03) 6226 2546
Facsimile (03) 6226 2569
FACULTY OF EDUCATION
Appendix 6: Teacher Survey Instrument
This document has been translated into Indonesian by an accredited NAATI translator.
Questionnaire
Section A. Biographical Data
1. Name (optional): _____________________________________
2. Sex: Female Male
3. Year of birth: 19______
4. Current grade taught: ________________
5. What is your primary role in the school? A teacher A principal
6. Indicate by ticking one box which ethnic background you originally come from:
Javanese (please specify which part of Java) ____________
Sasak
Makassar
356
Others (please specify) _____________
7. Indicate by ticking one or more boxes which apply to you. Which ethnic group do you feel you belong to?
Javanese (please specify which part of Java) ____________
Sasak
Makassar
Others (please specify) _____________
357
8. Teacher training/education background. Please tick all that apply and indicate year of completion.
Level of education Year of completion
Teachers’ certificate (i.e., 3 years) ______
Diploma of Teaching (i.e., 1 year) ______
Diploma of Teaching (i.e., 2 years) ______
Diploma of Teaching (i.e., 3 years) ______
Diploma of Education ______
Bachelor of Education ______
Bachelor of Arts ______
Masters Degree ______
Other (please specify)____________________________
9. Other teaching experience.
Have you taught in other schools before? If yes, list the names of the schools and specify number of
years. If no, go to the next.
Yes No
358
Name of previous schools Length of teaching in years
____________________________ ________________________
____________________________ ________________________
10. Do you also teach in another school?
Yes No
If yes, name the school: ______________________________
How many hours per week? __________________________
Do you also teach private lessons out of school (les)?
Yes No
If yes, how many hours per week? ______________________
359
Section B. Issues related to children, student-centred learning, school
culture, leadership, and curriculum implementation
11. Put a number from one to five to indicate the extent to which any of these items have shaped your beliefs about teaching primary aged-children. Number one means the item has the most influence and five means the least:
Religion
Custom
Various Penataran
Various workshops
Subjects taken at college
Cluster meetings or workshops
Others
12. Put a number from one to five to indicate the extent to which any of these items hinders efforts to improving education quality. Number one means the item hinders the biggest and five the least.
Superiors
360
Sub-ordinates
Colleagues
Myself and my family condition
Students and their background
School environment
Regional government
Central government
Others
361
13. Please list and describe the three best things about your school.
____________________________________________________________________
__________________________________
__________________________________
__________________________________
__________________________________
________________
14. Please list and describe the three worst things about your school.
__________________________________
__________________________________
__________________________________
__________________________________
__________________________
Survey Lanjutan
362
Please circle the response that corresponds to the extent to which you agree or disagree with the
following list of statements. The five alternatives are:
SA Strongly Agree
A Agree
NS Not Sure
D Disagree
SD Strongly Disagree
Students and how they learn SA A NS D SD
1. A smart child does not ask many questions.
2. A good child is a quiet child.
3. Children learn best by watching an
adult and copying.
4. Smart children are born that way.
5. Asking questions to the teacher or parents is a form of disrespect.
6. A good child is obedient and doesn't ask why they are told to do something.
7. Girls are not born equally active as boys.
8. Boys are born smarter than girls.
9. What a child brings from birth determines his/her intelligence.
10. When a child is slow learning it is usually because they are stupid.
11. Physical punishment is an effective form of discipline.
12. There are no other more effective discipline techniques other than physical punishment.
13. Nutrition makes a difference to a child's capacity to learn.
363
14. The first thing to look for in a good school is how good the principal office looks.
15. Good relationship between teachers and students is not important in primary teaching.
16. Good relationship between teachers and principals is an important indicator for a school to progress.
17. A good school is one which wins many trophies
Concerning various curriculum
implementation issues SA A NS D SD
18. In our school, teachers get curriculum updates and changes in a timely manner.
19. Syllabus and Unit Planning proformas are administrative documents.
20. Active Learning is more than just the administrative documents such as syllabus and unit planning proformas.
21. In our school, teachers get continuous guidance to write syllabus and unit planning.
22. ‘Penataran’ is an effective professional development technique.
23. By the time I complete this survey, I have received material on the new curriculum.
24. Teachers are modelled with Active Learning techniques when attending training.
25. School supervisors do not yet understand the new curriculum and Active Learning
26. ‘LPMP’ has an important role in the successful implementation of the new curriculum and Active Learning.
27. ‘District Education Office/Diknas’ has an important role in the successful implementation of the new curriculum and Active Learning.
364
28. Good coordination between ‘LPMP’ and ‘District Education Office/Diknas’ is important for the successful implementation of the new curriculum.
29. The coordination between ‘LPMP’ and ‘District Education Office/Diknas’ needs to be improved.
30. It is difficult for teachers to obtain material for Active Learning and the new curriculum.
31. Teachers receive printed material on the new curriculum.
32. New curriculum socialization sessions consist of passing on information verbally.
Concerning teacher/school meetings as a
tool for consultation SA A NS D SD
33. In our schools, teachers meeting are held regularly.
34. Teachers’ meeting is held every week.
35. Major policy decisions in our school are made by the principal without consultation with the teachers.
36. As a teacher, I do not need to get involved to solve problem because it is the principal job to solve problem.
37. Teachers do not need to be involved in policy decision re. school finance.
365
Appendix 7: Lesson Observation Proforma
Lesson Observation Proforma
In this sheet issues concerning with both the physical layout as well as the non-physical aspects such
as the class atmosphere will be recorded.
General
Date of visit: ................................................... Sub-district: ..........................................
Name of School:............................................. Name of teacher: ..................................
Name of class (i.e. year): .............................. Topic(s) observed: ...............................
Length of observation:.................................. No. children in class: ..........................
No. teachers/adult helpers in class: ............Approx. size of classroom: ........................
Physical layout
1. Classroom layout
Desk or table layout:
...............................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................
366
Reading corner:
.......................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................
Other activity corners/ areas (e.g. sand, water, shapes, musical instruments):
...............................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................
2. Wall displays? No Yes
If yes, rate the following features 1, 2 or 3. (1 = very much so; 2 = to some extent; 3 = not really)
Attractive 1 2 3
Interactive 1 2 3
Children’s own work 1 2 3
Brief description :......................................................................................
....................................................................................................................
............................................................................................................................
367
3. Rescources on display? No Yes
If yes, rate the following features 1, 2 or 3. (1 = very much so; 2 = to some extent; 3 = not really)
Attractive 1 2 3
Interactive 1 2 3
Children’s own work 1 2 3
Brief description :......................................................................................
...................................................................................................................
...................................................................................................................
Non-physical features of the class which indicate important factors, such as relationship, attitudes of
both teacher and children to learning, and that learning is taking place. A brief description will be
recorded to illustrate the item.
4. relationship between teachers and students
................................................................................................................................................
368
5. relationship between students and students
...............................................................................................................................................
6. teacher’s responses toward children learning
...............................................................................................................................................
7. children’s enthusiasm toward their own learning
................................................................................................................................................
Below are other physical indicators that learning takes place. It is also important to examine
teacher’s planning as one indicator of learning facilitation.
9. Evidence of teacher planning, note all that apply and provide a brief description.
Lesson plan
……………………………………………………………………………………………
Lesson is a part of a longer unit teacher has planned
………………………………………………………………………………………………
Teacher designed students’ assessment
369
………………………………………………………………………………………………
Teacher post-lesson note
……………………………………………………………………………………………
Children reflect on their work
..........................................................................................................................................................
Other indicators
No sign of
this
Constantly Sometimes Hardly ever
Use of group work, as
indicated below:
Children working in groups
Children working in pairs
Shift from whole class to
group/pair or reverse
Variety of activities and
children and teacher
movement:
1. Children sitting in desk
writing or reading
2. Children not sitting in
desk doing other work in
370
addition to writing
Other indicators
No sign of
this
Constantly
Sometimes
Hardly ever
Children acting
independently of teacher
Children teaching or helping
other children or leading
groups
Teacher moving round the
room to help children
Use of questions to stimulate
learning and thinking
Use of local material and
environment to assist
learning
Gender Equity, such as:
1. Boys and girls sitting
Together
2. Boys and girls sitting
Separately
3. Boys interact with
371
teacher more
4. Girls interact with teacher
more
5. Teacher calls on boys
more
6. Teacher calls on girls
more
7. Material is gender-biased
The following questions will be included in a post-lesson interview.
Questions about teaching for the teacher:
[If small groups were observed]:
Do you ever teach this class as a whole group? Roughly how often, in a week? For what sort of
teaching would you decide to work like that?
................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................
372
................................................................................................................................................
Which do you prefer - teaching the children in small groups or as a whole class? Why? (Which way
do you think best helps the children to learn?)
................................................................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................
[If whole class teaching were observed]:
Do you ever organise this class in small groups to teach? Roughly how often, in a week? For what
sort of teaching would you decide to work like that?
................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................
Which do you prefer - teaching the children as a whole class or teaching them in small groups? Why?
(Which way do you think best helps the children to learn?)
................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................
373
374
Appendix 8: Brief Interview Schedule
Brief Interview Schedule
Source of information on active learning
How do you know about active learning?
Teachers‘ concerns, if any.
With regard to using active learning, tell me if you have any concerns?
1. What have or have not you understood about the methods?
2. What do you think you need in relation to the above concern?
Concerns about the performance of the tasks, if any.
What do you do differently in terms of your own activities as a teacher, what about
students activities, how is the interaction different, if any?
Concerns about your colleagues, principal, and school inspector, if any.
1. What concerns do you have with your colleagues, if any?
2. What concerns do you have with your principal, if any?
3. What concerns do you have with your inspector, if any?
4. What concerns do you have with your students, if any?
375
5. What concerns do you have with parents, if any?
Other concerns, other than the above if any.
376
Private Box 66
HOBART TAS, 7001
Telephone: (03) 6226 2546
Facsimile (03) 6226 2569
UN
IV
ER
SI
TY
O
F
TA
SM
AN
IA
FACULTY OF EDUCATION
Appendix 9: Exploratory, Open-Ended Interview Schedule
This document will be translated into Indonesian by an accredited NAATI translator to enable data collection.
Interview Schedule
Date: insert here
About the interview
I plan to conduct an hour interview with you. However, you may stop before then if you feel you do not want to
continue. If you feel like spending more than one hour, I would be glad to keep the interview going. This interview
will be transcribed and to do that I will need to audio tape it. In the thesis your name will not be revealed and the
information you will give will be taken as strictly confidential and only for research purposes.
This interview will ask your opinion and knowledge about various challenges that you may face as a
teacher/principal/bureaucrats/education personnel, and ways in which these challenges can be resolved. It is most
important that you answer these honestly.
About your job and involvement in any activities related with the new curriculum
1. About your job, what are you?
A teacher A principal Bureaucrat Others _______________
377
2. Which school/office do you work? _____________________
3. How long have you been doing this job? _____ years.
4. List any professional development activities that you have participated since the introduction of the 2006
curriculum in March 2006. Tell me more about each of these activities (where, your role, how you like it, what you
don’t like about, how it can be done differently etc.)
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
The interview questions will be formulated along the issues associated with curriculum implementation which
include strategies, teacher professional development, and challenges derived from various technical, political and
cultural aspects.
These questions below are indicative only.
1. Issues to do with technical aspect. For the bureaucrat questions will also be asked about their involvement in
various events leading to the issuance of Ministerial Decrees mandating the use of the new curriculum.
Will this curriculum really make any significant difference? Please explain. Tell me what you do when you say you teach using active learning methods. Explain to me what you find difficult to be able to teach using active learning methods. Tell me how you think these difficulties can be resolved. Do you think active learning approach is a difficult approach to be adopted? Why? If so how can the approach be made easier to implement in your school? Is getting children actively engaged in the learning much harder to do than what you have
normally done? Why?
378
How can activities that help children to be actively engaged in the learning fit with everyday routines that are now in existence?
2. Issues to do with political aspect
From a political view, what do you think have been the major external and internal factors influencing the development of the new competency-based curriculum?
In your school community are there any forces that you think in favour of the new competency-based curriculum?
What about those that are opposed, are there any, can you explain? Do you think those that are in favour is stronger or weaker?
3. Issues to do with cultural aspect. Questions to do with beliefs about children and how they learn will also be
asked. Probing is anticipated.
How does autonomy fit the culture of teachers/principals? How does autonomy fit with the culture of parents/community? What do you do to be an autonomous teacher/principal? Do you think the idea of autonomy is an attempt to change these cultures in a significant
way? If so please explain further. If so, how can this be done over a period of time and what teacher/principal/parents/member
of the public do? How and in what context, can the values of being autonomous be modelled? What do you think is there for teachers/principals/parents to attempt such a change?
379
Appendix 10: Sample Interview Transcript (including
translation of responses into English)
Teacher (T27M). Agustus, 12, 2007.
Note that the Indonesian language is written in blue font and English in black.
Q.1 Source of information on active learning
How do you know about active learning?
Saya belum belajar mengenai PAKEM hanya beberapa kali mengikuti sosialisasi tentang PAKEM dan
ditekankan oleh pemateri bahwa di dalam proses belajar mengajar kita ciptakan suasana dengan
pendekatan PAKEM agar pembelajaran itu siswa dapat aktif, kreatif, dan menyenangkan.
I haven’t learnt active learning (PAKEM) but I have attended several dissemination workshops. The
presenters emphasizes that in the teaching and learning process, the situation/climate of learning
must be created that allow students to enjoy the learning and be active and creative.
Q.2 Teachers‘ concerns
With regard to using active learning, tell me if you have any concerns?
Q.2.1 Concerns about yourself
What have or have not you understood about the methods?
PAKEM ini sendiri dan mungkin juga yang disebut pembelajaran hakiki dan merisaukan sebab guru
belum memahami betul tentang pendekatan PAKEM/PAIKEM dan guru belum maksimal
menggunakan/mengembangkan media pengajaran. Bisa saja itu dilakukan karena belum paham
betul PAKEM atau media pembelajaran sulit didapat sehingga masih mengacu pada penguasaan
materi dan metode ceramah dan pemberian tugas.
Active learning, may be also called Pembelajaran Hakiki is something of a worry because teachers do
not yet fully understand it and that teachers have not used teaching aides maximally. Those could be
because [they] do not understand the principles of active learning and it is difficult for them to find
teaching aides so [teachers] always use lecture methods and giving students worksheet.
380
Q.2.2 Perceived needs
What do you think you need in relation to the above concern?
Harus bentuk tim penyusun dari daerah-daerah sampai ke pusat sebagai pelengkap dari silabus/RPP
serta pengembangan media pelajaran. PAKEM dan pengembangan media pengajaran disesuaikan
dengan keadaan lingkungan anak. [Hasilnya] sebagai sumber belajar dan dapat digunakan secara
nasional berdasarkan standard kompetensi dan kompetensi dasar yang dituangkan dalam RPP/mata
pelajaran/kelas masing-masing. Itu baik itu berupa mainan atau nyanyian agar dapat
membangkitkan gairah semangat belajar siswa dan guru. Itu berarti termasuk juga kita mendukung
Undang-Undang perlindungan anak.
A development team must be set up from districts up to the central levels to also complement the
development of syllabus and lesson planning and the making of teaching aides. The use of active
learning and the development of teaching aides are to suit the condition of students’ environment.
The outcome then can be used for the teaching aides nationally based on the [prescribed] standard
and which is presented in the lesson planning for each class. They come in the form of games and
songs to motivate students’ and teachers’ interests. Doing this also means that teachers support the
implementation of The Bill of Children Protection.
Q.3 Concerns about the performance of the tasks
What do you do differently in terms of your own activities as a teacher, students activities,
interaction etc?
Apabila saya sebagai (guru) (telah) bisa dan mampu menyusun silabus dan RPP maka saya (akan)
berdiri di depan kelas untuk menawarkan konsep ini kepada siswa-siswi agar mereka senang
menerima tawaran ini. Disini, (dalam kaitannya dengan PAKEM) yang memegang peranan penting
adalah (PAKEM dan) media pembelajaran (untuk membuat) agar siswa siswi senang. Sedangkan
guru tidak dibekali/digodok dengan PAKEM yang baik serta media pengajaran yang baik maka saya
risau KTSP akan jalan sesuai apa kita harapkan.
If only I, as a teacher am able to develop the [expected] syllabus and lesson planning, so I will
propose to the students this approach and encourage them to accept it. In relation to active
learning, teaching aieds plays important role in order that children are interested and happy.
Meanwhile, teachers have not been well supported and trained about active learning and how to
make teaching aides. I am concenrned about the new curriculum in that it will not be as we hope.
381
Q.4 Concerns about your colleagues, principal, and school inspector
Q.4.1 Concerns about colleagues
What concerns do you have with your colleagues?
Tidak di godok. [Mereka] memberikan sosialisasi atau pelatihan hanya setengah atau satu hari
dengan sekedar satu dua contoh pada mata pelajaran tertentu dengan penekanan seperti model
pembelajaran dengan pendekatan PAKEM. Guru dituntut seperti ini dengan tidak mempunyai suatu
pelatihan yang bekal yang mantap berarti guru melaksanakan pembelajaran yang efisien bagaimana
lalu siswa yang aktif, kreatif, dan menyenangkan yang mana.
Not yet supported. [They] give a half or one day training with one or two examples in the selected
with active learning. Teachers are then told to use this teaching approach but they do not have the
good support or training so how can one expect teachers to carry out the process efficiently, how
can teachers make children active, creative, and the learning fun, how?
Q.4.2 Concerns about principal
What concerns do you have with your principal?
Kepala sekolah harus bekerja sama dengan guru-guru agar dapat menyusun program dan RAB
sekolah dalam mengantisipasi hambatan PAKEM dan pengembangan media pengajaran di sekolah
walaupun hambatan itu tidak dapat diatasi sekaligus tapi sedikit demi sedikit akhirnya semua dapat
teratasi.
Principal must work together with teachers in developing the program and the school budget in the
way to anticipate teachers’ *needs+ of teaching aides and the obstacles *they face+. *We+ cannot
resolve all the obstacles all at once but step by step.
Q.4.3 Concerns about inspector
What concerns do you have with your inspector?
Pengawas memang mendukung sekali. Dukungan pengawas itu dituangkan pada saat melakukan
supervisi atau memonitor di sekolah setiap saat. Datang dengan pemberitahuan sebelumnya, ada
yang tidak (memberitahu sebelumnya). Yang kedua langsung di kelas memantau pelaksanaan proses
belajar mengajar oleh guru kelas masing-masing atau guru mata pelajaran. Yang saya risaukan
adalah pada saat pelaksanaan proses belajar mengajar, [ada] yang kurang menggunakan pendekatan
PAKEM. [Ada] yang kurang maksimal dalam metode. Maka tujuan akan tidak tercapai pada saat itu
dan seterusnya.
382
The school inspector has supportive attitudes. Their support are demosntrated when they supervise
[teachers] and monitor schools. They come; sometimes with notice and some other times without.
When coming without notice they go straight to classes to monitor teachers to carry out of teaching
and learning process. However my concerns are in the teaching and learning process there are those
who are not using active learning. There are those who do not use good methods. Consequently, the
outcomes will not be achieved now and in the future.
Q.4.4 Concerns about students
What concerns do you have with your students?
Saya kelompokkan ada tiga tipe anak; (1) anak normal sehat jasmani dan rohani, (2) anak normal tapi
(kurang) gizi, dan (3) anak yang mengalami kelainan dan nakal dan banyak bermain. Tipe no. 3 ini
jarang ditemui tapi (kebanyakan kita punya) tipe no. 1 dan 2. Pendekatan PAKEM akan tuntas untuk
tipe 1 dan 2. Untuk tipe anak no. 3 guru senantiasa menggunakan (pendekatan) yang bervariasi
(yang) ditujukan khusus kepada anak tipe 3, (misalnya) melalui pengayaan/remedial. Insya Allah bisa
merubah sikap anak.
(In my class) there are 3 groups of students; the healthy, the malnourished, and the one with
behaviour problems. The first two are the majority although with group no. 3 teachers have to use a
different approach, with more variety. I used remedial program for the third group and this has
helped with their behaviour. God Willing, the children will change their behaviour.
Q.4.5 Concerns about parents
What concerns do you have with your parents?
Kalau orang tua serta komite sekolah tidak mendukung baik saran, pendapat baik material dan
spiritual maka saya risau pelaksanaan KTSP akan hasilnya tidak tercapai. Serta membimbing anak
belajar di rumah sebab jam belajar yang disediakan di sekolah hanya kurang lebih 5 atau 6 jam
sedang sisanya anak berada di luar sekolah (di rumah).
When parents and school committee do not lend their support, either in the form of suggestion or
provide material and spiritual support, I am concenrned about the new curriculum implementation.
Parents’ guidance at home are critical because spend 5-6 hours a day at schools and the rest at
home.
Q.5 Other concerns
Question
PAKEM serta pengembangan media pengajaran ini ada suatu petunjuk yang jelas serta dilatih terus
dalam kegiatan KKG berarti guru dan siswa sudah sama [paham]PAKEM/PAIKEM maka KTSP mudah-
mudahan akan mencapai tujuan dan terlaksana dengan baik. Untuk mewujutkan semua ini faktor
383
keuangan juga menentukan tergantung pada kebijakan pimpinan dan peran serta wali murid dan
komite sekolah.
I wish there were clear guidelines on how to do PAKEM and and to make teaching aides, and
continuous training like in teacher forum in order that both teachers and students [understand] I am
hopeful that the new curriculum will be implemented well and [we] meet its intended outcomes. To
realise all of these, it depends on the funding factor which depends on the policy of our leaders and
parents’ and school committee’s participations.
384
Appendix 11: Sample Coded Lesson Observation Transcript
Teacher 1 (T42F).School A (SDN2 Soasio), 22 students aged 11-12 (Grade 6), science a (2 X
35) or 70 minutes lesson.
Notes:
Colour codes:
Teacher-Initiated/dominated (TI/TD): blue:
Teacher-Response/Feedback (TR/TF): green
Student-response/answer (SR/SA): purple
Student-Initiated (SI): yellow
Definitions:
i. An interaction is defined as a complete initiation-response-feedback/follow-up (IRF)
or initiation-response (IR) exchange
ii. In this analysis teacher-class (T-C) interaction includes both teachers‘ interaction with
the class as a whole and their interaction with individuals in the context of whole class
teaching. T-I interactions are also those in which teachers dealth with individuals in
the context either of monitoring or extended individual attention.
iii. At any one time I-I interaction may be taking place at the same time as T-G or T-I. (p.
398)
Other dimension of observation
Class/Classroom Arrangement : C Ar (the physical lay out of the classroom which
suggest whether focus of the physical as well as activities of the classroom and in the
class is unitary (one class as a whole rather than several groups or many individuals a
relationship between that class and the teacher and one activity pursued at any one
time ) or multiple (several sub-groups rather than simply one class unit, different kind
of relationship, both within groups and between groups, between individual and the
teacher, and several activities pursued at any one time – p. 185 )
Classroom Talk consists of talk between: Teacher to Class (T-C); Teacher to Group
(T-G); and Teacher to Individual student (T-I) p.391
Class Activities (Cac) consists of answer questions; assess peers/self; collaborate
(group and pair); construct; draw/paint; games; listen/look; move for task purposes;
national/religious ritual; physical exercises; read silently; read to class; read to
teacher; talk as class/chanting; talk to class; talk to teacher; task-specific apparatus;
work from blackboard; work from textbook; work from worksheet; write at
blackboard; write at desk (p. 354)
385
01:01-15:00
(Before the class started, a fiften minutes assembly was held. All students and teachers in the
whole school assembled in the school yard for housekeeping matters welcoming and
preparing for the independence various activities and celebration)
01.00 – 15.00
(semua siswa dari kelas 1 sampai kelas 6 sedang berbaris) SM – students queue
1T: Tegak gerak. Assalamualikum WarahmatuLLahi Wabarakatuh TI(TC) (students move as
instructed by the teacher)
2S: Walaikumsalam WarahmatuLLahi Wabarakatuh CT; SR(CT)
3T: Pertama-tama, ibu sampaikan mulai dari kelas 1 sampai kelas 6, bahwa hari ini adalah
hari kamis yaitu hari kamis tanggal ? CT-TI (TC)
4S: enambelas, CT-SR (CT)
5T: 16 Agustus 2007. Jadi besok kita akan mengadakan upacara 17 Agustus. Jadi perhatikan,
kelas 1, dengar kemari dulu. Mulai dari kelas 1 sampai kelas 6, besok kita, tidak termasuk
juga kelas 1,2,3, itu tidak di undang. Hanya kelas 4,5,6, untuk upacara 17 agustus di lapangan
Opentet atau lapangan… besok jam 8. Kela 4,5,6, pakaian seragam lengkap. Topi, kemeja
putih dengan rok merah. Berarti pakai topi, celana merah, baju putih, itu seragam, besok jam
8 di Opentet atau di lapanga….. itu untuk kelas 4,5,6. Dan yang kedua, Ibu sampaikan bagi
yang belum lunas uang baju kaos-nya itu silahkan hubungi Ibu Ustadjah Umi. Biar bayar 10
ribu, 20 ribu, karena baju kaos ….. (berbicara dengan bahasa daerah). Jadi biar mama-mama
10 ribu, 20 ribu, yang belum lunas itu sama sekali. Yang belum ambil baju kaos, itu masih
ada di dalam, daftar di ibu Ustadjah Umi, ambil semua. Semua di haruskan memakai kaos
olahraga, karena setiap hari jumat, sabtu kita memakai baju kaos olahraga. Apalagi kalau kita
olahraga, mesti pakai pakaiana kaos olahraga. CT-TI (TC)
01:01-05:00
(Class started)
6T: CT Assalamualikum WarahmatuLLahi Wabarakatuh ; TI Islamic ritual
7S: CT Walaikumsalam WarahmatuLLahi Wabarakatuh – SR all students responded using
Islamic ritual
386
8T: CT Sebelumnya, Ibu absen dulu ya. halo, halo, hey, hey TI (ibu guru menyapa anak
dengan kata halo, hey. Sesudah itu, ibu guru sedang melakukan absen). 2 orang yang tidak
hadir ya. baiklah anak-anak sebelum pelajaran di mulai, marilah kita berdoa bersama-sama,
berdoa mulai. Islamic prayer
9S: C Ac (anak-anak sedang berdoa) SR (religious ritual)
10T: CT teacher giving direction Selesai. Marilah kita menyanyi dulu sebagai pembuka
pelajaran kita. Ya kita akan menyanyi bersama-sama lihat kebun ku. Bisa to ? 1,2,3.. TI
11S: C Ac (anak-anak sedang bernyanyi) singing (as instructed)
12T: CT Ya, ibu punya bunga ini. Mengapa ibu menyanyi lihat kebun ku, karena ibu, mau
kasih tunjuk, ibu punya bunga ini, yang lain diam. Yak, jadi anak-anak, ternyata bunga yang
indah ini ya, ternyata bunga yang indah ini, ada yang merah, ada yang kuning. Terdiri dari
kuning dan merah. Jadi ini adalah sebagai salah satu alat perkembangbiakan pada tumbuhan.
Nah, pada pagi hari ini, kita akan belajar tentang perkembangbiakan pada tumbuhan ya. mana
penghapusnya, penghapusnya mana, penghapus ?. TI (teacher explaining)
13S: C Ac (anak-anak diam, tidak tahu) (silently - listening to teacher)
05.01 -10.00
14T: Yak jadi ibu ulang, hari ini kita akan belajar tentang perkembangbiakan pada tumbuhan.
Sebelumnya saya mau nanya dulu, tumbuhan ini kan merupakan bagian dari, tumbuhan ini
merupakan bagian dari mahluk hidup. Tumbuhan ini merupakan bagian dari mahluk hidup
ya. karena salah satu cirri mahluk hidup ya. Salah satu ciri mahluk hidup adalah apa ? ibu,
mau jawab satu saja, salah satu ciri mahluk hidup. Ya Faisal CT –TI;T-C;TI
15S: CT (seorang anak bernama Faisal menjawab) SR (I-T)
16T: CT: Itu contohnya, bukan cirinya. Boleh, TF. Terus apa lagi? TI
17S: CT berkembangbiak(seorang anak menjawab) SR (I-T)
18T: CT Berkembangbiak. Ya salah satu cirri mahluk hidup adalah berkembangbiak. Ayo
apa lagi ? yang termasuk, coba ingat-ingat yang kemarin ibu jelaskan. Selain berkembangbiak
kan masih ada lagi banyak cirri-ciri mahluk hidup. TI. Ya Iqbal. T-I
19S: CT Menghasilkan keturunan. SR (I-T) (seorang anak bernama Iqbal menjawab) One
student responding
20T: CT Ya, menghasilkan keturunan sama artinya juga dengan berkembangbiak. TF. Ada
lagi, kamu bisa rasakan setiap hari. Bagimana ada lagi. Bisa, apa ? TI (T-C)
21S: CT perkembangbiakan dengan kawin (seorang anak menjawab) SR (I-T) student
responding
387
22T:CT Ada lagi. Tambah lagi selain berkembangbiak, menghasilkan keturunan, selain
berkembangbiak dengan cara kawin. TR Ada satu lagi, sebutkan sayang cirri-ciri mahluk
hidup. Kamu rasakan setiap saat, setiap detik, ayo apa ? coba-coba sayang dengarkan ibu,
setiap saat, setiap detik, kamu tidak bisa penuhi, bisa bikin kamu akan kelaparan itu. Apa itu
? TI (T-C)
23S: CT (seorang anak menjawab dengan ragu-ragu) SR (I-T) student responding with doubt
24T: CT Ada lagi, coba lihat ibu dulu, coba lihat ibu dulu. Bisa tambahkan satu lagi, yang
kamu lakukan setiap detik ya, setiap detik. Apa itu ? TI (T-C)
25S: CT Bernapas (seorang anak menjawab) SR (I-T) one student responding
26T: CT Bernapas ya. sudah lupa ya. bernapas, TF. Tapi kita hari ini khusus belajar tentang
berkembangbiak, perkembangbiakan pada tumbuhan khususnya. Nanti ibu terangkan
perkembangbiakan pada hewan. Tapi hari ini, ibu hanya khusus mau menerangkan tentang
perkembangbiakan pada tumbuhan. Kemudian,, yak ada satu pertanyaan lagi, yang pertama
tumbuhan menyesuaikan diri. Tumbuhan bisa menyesuaikan diri, satu pertanyaan lagi, kira-
kira, kira-kira ya, kamu belum belajar to. Kira-kira perkembangbiakan pada tumbuhan
berkaitan dengan apa saja, yang kamu lihat. TI (T-C)
10.01 – 15.00
27S: CT Dengan biji (seorang anak menjawab) SR (I-T) one student responding
28T: CT Dengan biji ya. TF
29S: CT Dengan tunas (seorang anak menjawab) SR (I-T) – one student responding
30T: CT Dengan tunas ya. TF Apa lagi ? terus tadi ibu bilang ternyata bunga yang satu ini,
merupakan salah satu alat perkembangbiakan pada tumbuhan, salah satu. Berarti masih ada
alat perkembangbiakan yang lain. Alat perkembangbiakan lain pada tumbuhan, merupakan
salah satu. Kalau ini, tumbuhan ini, berkembangbiak kalau dengan bunga itu nanti di lakukan
dengan cara perkawinan ya. Bisa, ada dengan tunas, ada dengan stek. Orang kalau menanam
kati dengan apa ? TI (T-C)
31S: CT Dengan batang (seorang anak menjawab) SR (C-T)
32T: CT Dengan batang yaitu di buat stek ya.TR. Orang menanam pohon mangga dengan ..?
TI (T-C)
33S: CT Dengan biji (beberapa orang menjawab) SR (G-T)
34T: CT Dengan biji. TR Orang menanam bunga dengan ? TI (T-C)
35S: CT Batang (seorang anak menjawab) SR (I-T) one student responding
36T: C T Batang atau stek. Kalau dengan batang itu, berarti stek ya dan lain-lain. TF Nah,
berikutnya ingin tahukah kamu, ingin tidak ? TI (T-C)
388
37S: CT Ingin (serempak menjawab) SR (C-T) in unison students responding
38T: Kalau ingin, ya bilang ibu ingin. Kalau tidak ingin, ya bilang tidak ingin. Ingin tahukah
kamu ? CT-teacher talking
39S: CT Ingin (serempak menjawab) SR (C-T) in unison students responding
40T: CT Ya, kalau ingin tahu, marilah kalau ingin tahu. Mari kita belajar sama-sama ya,
tentang perkembangbiakan pada tumbuhan. TR Ya, ibu teragkan dulu, kamu perhatikan.
Bahwa perkembangbiakan pada tumbuhan di bedakan menjadi 2 cara ya. Di bedakan dengan
2 cara, yang satu dengan cara vegetatif dan yang satu-nya lagi dengan generatif ya.
Perkembangbiakan vegetatif ya, perkembangbiakan vegetatif adalah perkembangbiakan
dengan cara tidak kawin, yang kamu sebutkan tadi dengan tunas itu contohnya. Sedangkan
kalau dengan bunga ini, yang ibu bilang ada bunga itu, berarti perkawinan ya. jadi yang
kedua adalah generatif yaitu perkembangbikan dengan cara melalui perkawinan, ya ada
gambaran. Ini Ibu kasih gambaran besarnya dulu ya. jadi yang pokok, kamu mengetahui
bahwa perkembangbiakan pada tumbuhan ada, ada berapa cara itu ? TI (T-C) teacher
explaining
41S: CT Dua (beberapa anak menjawab) SR (G-T) some students answering
42T:CT Ada berapa cara ? TR (T-C) teacher repeated asking the same question
43S: CT 2 (sebagian menjawab) SR (G-T) some students responding
44T: CT Dua cara. Satu generatif, coba semuanya sebut generatif. TR teacher asking students
to repeat saying one concept or drilling
45S: Generatif (serempak menjawab berulang-ulang 3 kali) SR (C-T) Chanting a concept
three times loudly
46T: CT Yang kedua, Vegetatif. TI (T-C) Drilling
47S: CT Vegetatif (serempak menjawab berulang-ulang 2 kali) SR (C-T) Chanting a concept
48T: CT Kalau Generatif dengan cara melalui perkawinan sedangkan Vegetatif dengan cara ?
TI (T-C)
49S: CT Tak kawin (beberapa anak menjawab) SR (G-T) some students responding
15.01 – 20.00
50T: CT Tak kawin. Pokoknya ingat-ingat kalau Generatif itu berarti kawin, kalau Vegetatif
itu berarti tidak kawin. Itu saja, kamu ingat saja kalimatnya ya. jadi kalau Generatif itu
kawin, kalau Vegetatif tak kawin. Kalau Generatif ini kamu ingat, bunga yang cantik ini.
Karena ini merupakan alat perkawinan. TR (T-C) Ternyata di dalam bunga ini, ada bagian-
bagian bunga yang namanya, yang satu ini namanya mahkota bunga ya. jadi kelopaknya,
coba bunganya lebih bagus, ini bunganya kurang. Kemudian mahktota bunga in, yang di
samping. Di dalam mahkota bunga, yang di atasnya, ada yang namanya kepala putik. Nanti
389
kita akan bahas ya, supaya lihat langsung. Kemudian ada kecil-kecil, itu namanya benang
sari. TI Teacher repeatedly explain two concept by using the same sentences and words.
Nanti masing-masing ibu guru akan terangkan ya. itu saja sebagai gambaran, sekarang ibu
bagi kalian menjadi 4 kelompok ya. menjadi 4 kelompok ya. 1 kelompok 3 orang. 1,2,3,4,5,6.
1 kelompok 3 orang ya. kita langsung akan mengadakan pengamatan di halaman sekolah kita.
Kita mau cari nama tumbuhan dengan alat, cara perkembangbiakannya. Kelompok 1, Faisal,
Ata denga Zul. Kelompok 2, Iqbal, En dengan Ari. Kelompok 3, Didin,.., dengan Santi. Nah
yang kelompok ini 4 orang ya. TI (T-C) preparing for group work. ya mari anak-anak semua,
kita pergi ke kebun, kita berkumpul di kebun sekolah ini ya. Sambil keluar kelas, ibu ingin
kasih tahu ya, dengar dulu, halo, hey TI (T-C ) giving instruction.
51S: CT Halo, Hey,, (Serempak menjawab salam) SR (C-T) all students responding
52T: Ibu ingin kamu mencari nama tumbuhan, minimal 10 ya. kemudian cara
perkembangbiakannya, mengerti to.CT-teacher talking
53S: (anak-anak pada ribut) CT-Students responding
54T: Perhatikan dengar dulu, dengar dulu, jangan bicara dulu. Ibu yang bicara dulu, baru
kalian yang bicara. 1 kelompok itu ada ketuanya, nanti setiap kelompok itu kerjasama ya.
Dan tidak boleh….. Kamu mencari nama tumbuhan yang ada di sekitar sekolah ini saja. 10
nama tumbuhan kemudian cara perkembangbiakannya. Setelah itu selesai, kalau ibu bilang
sudah selesai, kita masuk kedalam kelas ya. Masing-masing ketua kelompok, masing-masing
regunya, masing-masing kelompoknya itu nanti …. Bahwa ini saya punya kelompok ya, tahu.
Siapa yang ada pertanyaan. Siapa yang mau bertanya. Siapa yang masih bingung, supaya
nanti keluar tidak tanya-tanya lagi. Jelas tidak ?GI & C Ac-teacher giving instruction to
the whole class
55S: Jelas (sebagian menjawab) CT-some students responding
56T: Ya, ibu kasih waktu 20 menit diluar. 20 menit di luar ya.CT-teacher talking
57S: C Ac (anak-anak pada keluar kelas) SR all students are walking out to the school yard
20.01 -45.00 (twenty minutes)
C Ac (anak-anak pada keluar kelas selama 20 menit ) SR all students move freely doing work
from worksheet; collaborating.(twenty minutes )
45.01 – 50.00
58T: CT Sudah, sekarang kembali ke ruang kelas. Ya masuk sudah. Semuanya sudah tulis
sampai 10 ? TI (T-C) all students went back inside the class as instructed.
59S: CT Sudah (serempak menjawab). SR (C-T) in unison students responding.
390
60T: CT Ibu perlu tahu, jadi masing-masing kelompok mempresentasikan hasil kerjanya.
Siapa yang menjadi ketua kelompok, maju waktu di panggil untuk mempresentasikan kerja
kelompok kalian. Halo, halo,, TI (T-C) in a rythmical tone
61S: CT Hey, SR (C-T) in a rythmical tone
62T: CT Hey, TI (T-C) in a rythmical tone
63S: CT Halo, SR (C-T) in a rythmical tone
64T: CT Halo, halo TI (T-C) in a rythmical tone
65S: CT Hey, hey SR (C-T) in a rythmical tone
66T: CT Sekarang ibu minta kelompoknya Ayu, ketua kelompoknya siapa. Supaya maju
kedepan untuk mempresentasikan hasil kerja kamu. Kamu baca tumbuhannya apa, cara
perkembangbiakan tumbuhannya bagaimana. Ya, yang lain dengar, jangan bilang salah atau
jangan bilang, jangan kasih komentar dulu ya. kita selesaikan semua, baru nanti kta boleh
komentar. Ya, Ayu silahkan. GI & C Ac-teacher giving instruction
67S: C Ac (Ayu maju kedepan mempresentasikan hasil kerja kelompoknya) read to class
outcome from worksheet.
68T: CT Keraskan sedikit suaranya. TR Ya nanti kamu tulis nama kelompok kamu disini ya.
Sekarang, kesimpulannya nanti setelah ini baru kesimpulannya. TI Iqbal, kelompoknya Iqbal.
TI (T-G)
69S: C Ac (Iqbal maju ke depan) SR Read to class outcome from worksheet
70T: CT Tunggu dulu, kelompoknya Iqbal dengan anggotanya dulu. Anggotanya siapa? TR
50.01 – 55.00
71S: C Ac (Iqbal sedang mempresentasikan hasil kerjanya) SR (I-G/C) read to class outcom
from worksheet
72T: CA Boleh, bisa di terima. TR (asking students‘ opinion about the groups‘ work
outcome – asking students to judge others‘ work)
73S: CT Bisa, (beberapa orang menjawab) SR (G-T) some students responded
74T: C T Kelompoknya Santi.TI (T-G)
75S: C Ac. (Santi maju kedepan mempresentasikan hasil kerjanya) SR read to class outcome
from worksheet
76T: C T Kalau tidak setuju, nanti bilang kalau sudah selesai ya. Ada komentar gak atau
setuju dengan apa yang di, TI
391
77S: CT Setuju (beberapa anak menjawab) SR (G-T) some students responded shortly, no
words of value judgement other than one word ‗agree‘.
78T: CT Ada teki tadi, rumput teki dengan apa. ada komentar tidak ? TI (T- C) C Ac-teacher
checking students‘ work by asking a question
79S: C Ac. (anak-anak diam tidak menjawab) SR in silence (no one is responding)
80T: Hei,, tadi yang terangkan di belakang sana tadi itu. Rumput teki dengan apa ? C Ac-
teacher checking students‘ work by asking a question
81S: CT Akar (seorang anak menjawab) SR (I –T) one student responding
82T: CT Ya akar. Akar apa ? Ya, akar apa, di belakangnya ada titik itu. TR teacher checking
students‘ work by asking a question
83S: CT (anak-anak ribut mencari jawaban) SR (I-I) students talking to one another.
84T: CT Tadi di terangin masak lupa. Akar apa? Masak satu orang tidak ada yang ingat. TI
Lupa ingatan semua. Akar geragih. TR. Akar apa ? TI (T-C) Drilling
85S: CT Geragih (serempak menjawab) SR (C-T) all students shouting the word in unison
86T: CT Semuanya bilang akar geragih. TI (T-C) Drilling teacher instructing students to
repeat the same word
87S: CT Akar geragih. SR (C-T) serempak menjawab) students shouted the word again in
unison as instructed
88T: CT Satu kali lagi. TI (T-C) teacher instructing students to repeat the same word
89S: CT Akar geragih (serempak menjawab) SR (C-T) students shouted the same word as
instructed
90T: CT Rumput teki berkembang biak dengan akar geragih. TI (T-C)
91S: CT Ibu, batang itu sama denga stek? SI (one student was asking a question)
92T: CT Ya, batang sama dengan stek. TR Mari sekarang Faisal TI
93S: C Ac. (Faisal maju kedepan mempresentasikan hasil kerjanya) SR (I-C) one student
moved forward to be in front of the rest in classroom reading the outcome from the worksheet
94T: C T Ada komentar ? apa, yang mana ? TI (T-C) teacher opened the oportunity for
students to judge others‘
95S: Bonsai (beberapa anak bertanya) CT-some students responding
96T: Pohon Bonsai dengan apa ? Stek. Kemudian ada lagi, ada ? CT-teacher talking
97S: Lidah buaya (beberapa anak menjawab) CT-some students responding
392
98T: Lidah buaya, lidah buaya dengan apa ? CT-teacher talking
99S: Tunas (serempak anak menjawab)CT-students responded
100T: CT Ya, Lidah buaya tidak bisa dengan stek. Kalau Stek yang,, harus dengan tunas. Ya
tidak apa-apa, oke. TF Kalau yang salah di perbaiki. Ya, oke lanjut semua, mari kembali
lagi.TI Ya, Halo,,CT-teacher talking
101S: CT Hai, SR all student responding
102T: CT Mari kita sama-sama menyanyi satu lagi lihat kebun ku. 1,2,3 TI teacher
instructing students to sing
103S: CT (anak-anak sedang bernyanyi) SR C Ac. (students sing as instructed)
55.01 – 60.00
104T: CT Ya, jadi kalian kembali ke pelajaran. Ya kalian sudah lihat langsung kebun kalian
di sekolah kita. Kalian sudah tahu cara-cara perkembangbiakan tumbuhan terutama yang ada
di sekitar sekolah kita. Ada yang menggunakan stek, ada yang mengunakan dengan tunas,
ada yang menggunakan akar geragih, ada yang menggunakan akar apa ? akar tunggal. Ya,
ada dengan cara merunduk, ada dengan cara apa lagi ? TI (Teacher was telling students the
lesson summary)
105S: Biji (beberapa orang menjawab)CT- some students responding
106T: Ya biji. Kalau begitu ternyata bahwa tumbuhan ini, berkembangbiak dengan berbagai
cara ya. kalau kita golongkan atau kita amati satu-satu. Kamu perhatikan tadi, waktu kita di
kebun, kita lihat batang pisang ya. Batang pisang, dia berkembangbiak dengan ? C Ac & CT-
teacher explaining & leading a discussion with the children in a QA session
107S: Tunas (seorang anak menjawab) CT-a student responding
108T: Tunas, nah tunasnya ini merupakan bagian dari. Merupakan bagian dari, dari,, CT-
teacher talking
109S: CT (anak-anak diam tidak bisa menjawab) SR (silent response) no one is talking
110T: CT Induk batang pisang makanya di bilang anakan, bisa juga anakan ya, anak pisang.
Kemudian yang tadi upensil, perkembiakannya dengan cara yang bagaimana. Upensil
perkembangbiakannya dengan cara apa ? dengan batang, artinya apabila kita mau menanam
individu yang baru, individu dari anak tanaman yang baru, berarti kita membuat, ambil
batangnya, di buat stek kemudian di tanam di media lain. Di tempat lain, di tanah yang lain,
maka batang itupun akan tumbuh ya. Mengerti to, nah kemudian lagi kita lihat pada bunga
pukul 4, Bunga pukul 4, dia berkembang biak dengan cara apa tadi ?
111S: CT Biji (seorang anak menjawab) SR -student responding
393
112T: CT Dengan cara biji. Nah sekarang tahukan macam-macam cara perkembangbiakan
pada tumbuhan. Sekarang kesimpulan apa yang dapat kamu peroleh ya. Kira-kira kesimpulan
apa itu ? Dari kamu melihat kebun bunga ya, melihat halaman kita. Kesimpulan apa untuk
perkembangbiakan ini ? salah tidak bayar, salah tidak di denda, siapa yang berani. Tadi sudah
ibu sebutkan di muka sebelum pelajaran. Siapa yang berani menyimpulkan masalah
perkembangbikan ini ? tidak ada ? kesimpulan perkembangan, ayo, bagaimana, bagaimana.
Siapa berani ? Ayo siapa berani ?
113S: CT Faisal (seorang anak menunjuk temannya) SR (I-I) student nominating another
student to do the teacher instruction
114T: CT Jangan suruh orang lain, siapa yang tahu angkat tangan. TR (T-C) Ayo nanti yang
salah ibu kasih uang. Ya,, salah tidak bayar malah ibu kasih uang. TI (T-C) teacher talking
115S: CT saya bu (seorang anak bernama Faisal angkat tangan) SR (I-T) student responding
116T: CT ya Faisal. Kira-kira kesimpulannya itu apa Faisal? TI (T-I) teacher talking to one
student.
117S: CT Kesimpulannya itu perkembangbiakan ada yang secara Generatif, ada yang secara
Vegetatif. SR (I-T) One student responding
118T: CT Ya, Siapa yang bisa menambahkan lagi. Yak,, kesimpulannya ternyata bahwa
perkembangbiakan itu ada secara kawin dan tidak secara kawin. Kalau yang secara kawin itu
melalui proses nanti untuk keterangan selanjutnya, nanti untuk pertemuan yang akan datang
melalui proses yang di katakana bunga sempurna ya. Ada sel kelamin jantan, ada sel kelamin
betina. Misalnya ayam kawin melalui proses perkawinan. Ada ayam jantan, ada ayam betina.
C Ac-teacher explaining. CT Nah, dan perkembangbiakan yang Vegetatif itu berarti dia tidak
melalui perkawinan contohnya perkembangbiakan yang merupakan bagian dari tubuhnya
sendiri contohnya apa ? Batang, ada yang akar tunggal, akar geragih, ada yang apa lagi itu ?
jangan hanya ibu guru saja yang ngomong. TI (teacher had long explanation and felt she is
dominating the interaction and told the class to not let her do that).
60.01 – 65.00
75:01-80:00
119S: CT (anak-anak diam tidak bisa menjawab) SR (in silence) no one is talking
120T: CT Ya, perkembangbiakan Generatif ya contohnya apa yang melalui perkawinan ? TI
teacher talking again
121S: CT Kawin, (beberapa anak menjawab) SR some students responding
122T: CT Ya, Generatif itu artinya kawin sayang. Generatif itu artinya perkembangbiakan
dengan cara perkawinan, melalui perkawinan. Yak contohnya apa tadi yang perkawinan. Ya,
melalui perkawinan itu biasanya menggunakan biji ya. contohnya apa itu ? TR (T-C)
394
123S: CT Bunga pukul 4, SR (C-T) -student responding
124T: CT Pukul 4 ya, Bunga layayang. Terus apa lagi ?TI (T-C) teacher talking
125S: CT Mangga (seorang anak menjawab) SR (I-T) one Student responding
126T: CT Mangga, terus apa lagi ? (TI) (T-C) -teacher talking
127S: CT Pepaya (beberapa anak menjawab) SR (G-T) some students responding
128T: CT Apa lagi, masih banyak, kalau kamu sebut 100 bisa ? TI teacher talking
129S: CT (diam, tidak bisa menjawab) SR (in silence) -no one is talking
T: CT Lihat saja ke pasar, kalau kamu kepasar. Ada rambutan, ada durian, ada manggis, ada
banyak. Sekarang perkembangbiakan melalui, secara Vegetatif dengan tidak kawin.
Contohnya apa yang tidak melalui perkawinan ? TI teacher explaining
130S: CT Pisang (seorang anak menjawab) SR (I-T) -student responding
131T: CT Pisang ya, TI teacher talking
132S: CT Lidah buaya, (seorang anak menjawab)SR (I-T) student responding
133T: CT Sama apa lagi ?TI teacher asking
134S: CT Bambu, Pensil, SR (C-T) students responding
135T: CT Apa lagi ? lidah buaya ya. Boleh tambah lagi ?TR-teacher talking
136S: CT Boleh, SR-student responding
137T: CT Ya tambah lagi dong. Cempaka, cempaka itu ada biji atau tidak TR-teacher
asking
138S: CT Tidak,SR-student responding
139T: CT Dengan batang ya. Ada lagi ? TI-teacher talking
65.01 – 70.00
140S: CT Ketapang (seorang anak menjawab) SR-a student responding
141T: CT Ketapang itu dengan biji. Jangan jauh-jauh. Alpokat dengan apa ? generatif atau
vegetatif ?TI-teacher talking
142S: CT Generatif (sebagian menjawab) TI -some students responding
143T: CT Alpokat, ada lagi ? Rambutan, Durian, itu masuk di Generatif. Vegetatif yang lain,
misalnya pada batang singkong, batang daun jarak, wortel, kentang. Umbi-umbian ya, ini
banyak sekali. Tebu, tebu dengan apa itu ? TR – teacher explaining
395
144S: CT Batang. (serempak menjawab) TI-students responding
145T: CT Ya, pintar. Masih ada lagi, tambah lagi ? cari sebanyak-banyaknya. TI-teacher
talking
146S: CT Nangka (seorang anak menjawab) TI-a student answering
147T: CT Nangka dengan biji. -teacher talking
148S: CT Salak dengan biji (seorang anak menjawab)TI -a student answering
149T: CT yak, dan lain-lain. Nanti cari sendiri. Kalau tidak, bisa tanya ibu. Ya, bisa to ?
Kira-kira pelajaran hari ini ada gambaran tidak ? ada kamu punya gambaran tidak ?TI -
teacher talking and asking question
150S: CT Tidak (seorang anak menjawab)SR-no one is answering
151T: CT Ahh,, kamu punya gambaran. Kamu mengerti ka tarada.TI-teacher talking
152S: CT mengerti (seorang anak menjawab) SR-a student answering
153T: CT Mengerti ta rada ? TR-teacher talking
154S: CT Mengerti (beberapa anak menjawab) SR- some students responding
155T: CT yak, Ibu ulang lagi bahwa perkembangbiakan, pada tumbuhan ya. salah satu cirri
dari pada mahluk hidup. Salah satu cirinya adalah berkembangbiak. Tujuan dari pada
berkembang biak adalah untuk melestarikan keturunannya. Santi tujuan dari berkembangbiak
adalah untuk melestarikan keturunannya. Perkembangbiakan itu sendiri di bedakan menjadi 2
yaitu perkembangbiakan secara Vegetatif dan perkembangbiakan secara Generatif. Secara
Vegetatif itu, perkembangan tanpa melalui perkawinan sedangkan perkembangbiakan
Generatif itu, perkembangbiakan melalui perkawinan. Masing-masing contohnya sudah kamu
dapat, kalian sendiri, kamu sudah temui diluar. Jadi mudah-mudahan apa yang ibu berikan
hari ini, kamu bisa menerima atau barangkali ada anak-anak yang belum paham atau mau
bertanya silahkan. Silahkan kalau ada yang belum paham. Ada, semua sudah paham betul,
ada tidak ? TI Ac-teacher explaining
156S: CT (anak-anak diam tidak ada yang menjawab)TI-students not responding
157T: CT Kalau kalian diam saja, itu ada dua kemungkinan, kemungkinan pertama kamu
tahu betul, kemungkinan kedua kamu tidak tahu pertanyaannya. Jadi ini yang pertama atau
yang kedua ini. Kalian tidak tahu ?TI-teacher talking
158S: CT Tidak bu (seorang anak menjawab) TI -a student answering
159T:CT Yang mana yang belum tahu itu. Kalau belum tahu tanya. Kenapa tidak tanya dari
awal. Ada, ada, semua sudah tahu,boleh di kerjakan, supaya cepat sedikit. TI teacher talking
396
160S:CT 160S:One student was seen whispering and consulting to his classmate completely
aware that the teacher was expecting him to hurry up and complete the task at hand? (seorang
siswa berbicara) TI -student talking
161T: CT Ya, sudah tahu to. Jadi nanti kamu boleh, masing-masing kelompok kamu sudah
tulis itu to. Jadi nanti masing-masing kelompok, jadi nanti kamu salin kemasing-masing ke
dalam buku kamu, hasil kerja kamu itu kamu salin.ya. yang kamu presentasikan tadi sudah
bagus. Sudah belum ? TI teacher talking
70.01 – 75.00
85:01-90:00
162S: CT Sudah (serempak menjawab) SR (in unison students responding)
163T: CT Sudah, belum ?TI-teacher talking
164S: CT Sudah (serempak menjawab) SR (in unison students responding)
165T: CT Betul ?TR -teacher asking
166S: CT Betul (serempak menjawab) SR (in unison) students responding
167T: CT Ibu hapus ini. Sudah to, sekarang terakhir ibu ada pertanyaan ? semuanya diam.
Halo, TI -teacher talking in a rythmic tone
168S: Hey,, SR-student responding
169T:CT Halo,, TI-teacher talking
170S: CT Hay,, CT-students responding
171T: CT Salah satu cirri mahluk hidup adalah berkembang biak. Apa tujuan dari mahluk
hidup itu berkembang biak ? TI teacher talking
172S: CT Untuk melestarikan keturunannya (seorang anak menjawab) SR-student responding
173T: CT Melestarikan keturunannya yak. Yang kedua, perkembangbiakan di bedakan
menjadi 2 macam. Yang pertama adalah dengan cara Generatif. Apa itu perkembangan secara
Generatif ? TR teacher repeated the lesson conclusion.
174S: CT Seorang anak menjawab. SR (one student responding)
175T: CT Yang lain ada yang tahu. Apa itu perkembangbiakan Generatif? TR Iqbal
perkembangbiakan Generatif ? TI (T-I)
176S: (anak-anak diam tidak ada yang menjawab) SR (the whole class were silent)
177T: CT Perkembangbiakan Generatif adalah ? TI (teacher assessing students‘
understanding)
397
178S: CT perkembangbiakan secara kawin. SR all students responding in unison
179T: CT Betul sekali. Perkembangbiakan secara kawin. Perkembangbiakan yang kedua
adalah secara tidak kawin. Apa itu nama lainnya, apa ? nama lainnya apa ? TR (T-C)
180S: CT Vegetatif (seorang anak menjawab) SR (I-T) one student responding
181T: CT Dengan cara Vegetatif. Hari ini apa yang ibu sampaikan ini, mudahan bermanfaat
ya, mudah-mudahan bermanfaat. Kita nanti, tuga kamu di rumah ya, tugas kamu di rumah,
kamu mencari di lingkungan sekitar mu atau kalau ke kebun, nama tumbuh-tumbuhan dan
cara perkembangbiakannya.jadi ini bukan kerja kelompok. T I C act. (teacher giving
homework) Halo, halo, T-C teacher getting students attention
182S: CT Hey, Hey SR in a rythmic tone
183T: CT coba duduk dulu. Di rumah mencari 10 nama tumbuh-tumbuhan dan cara
perkembangbiakannya. Bisa ? TI C Act. teacher is giving homework
184S: CT Bisa (serempak) SR students in uniso responding
185T: CT Hari rabu di kumpulkan. Jelas? TI teacher checking student understanding
186S: CT Jelas (serempak) SR (C-T) all students responding in unison
187T: CT Oke dengan demikian selesai sudah mata pelajaran IPA dan yang lain. Kalau
sudah, kita tutup AlhamduliLLahhirobilallamin. Assalamualikum WarahmatuLLahi
Wabarakatuh TR teacher concluding the lesson and was using a religious ritual.
188S: CT Walaikumsalam WarahmatuLLahi Wabarakatuh SR (C-T) all students responding
in unison by doing a religious ritual.
398
Appendix 12: Teacher survey items and number of responses
for each
Survey Summary
Item Sub-topic Explanation
1-17: Children and how they learn
1-2, 4, 6, 7-9 Students One respondent didn’t respond to items 7 and 9. All other items were responded to by all respondents.
3, 5, 10-13, 15 How do children learn One respondent didn’t respond to item 10 and one didn’t respond to item 15. All other items were responded to by all respondents.
14, 16, 17 Quality and development of schools and pedagogy
Three respondent didn’t respond to items 17. All other items were responded to by all respondents.
18-32: Curriculum implementation
18-19, 21 Support available (document completeness)
All items were responded to by all respondents
20, 22 Method of training in active learning One respondent didn’t respond to item 20. Item 22 was responded to by all respondents.
23, 24, 31, 32 Questions about constraints One respondent did not answer item 24. All other items were responded to by all respondents.
25, 29 Teacher perceptions (understanding of school supervisors about PAKEM, extent of coordination between departments)
Two respondents did not answer item 25. Six respondents did not respond to item 29
26-28, 30
Teacher perceptions (role of LPMP, role of District Education Office, coordination between relevant departments, ease or difficulty in obtaining documents)
All respondents answered these items
33-37: School leadership
33-35 Meetings One respondent did not answer item 32 and two did not answer item 34. All other items were answered by all respondents.
36-37 Teacher perceptions (their role in the school in decision-making and finance management
All 47 respondents answered these items.
Total returns 47
399
Appendix 13: Sample Translated Lesson Observation
Transcript
Teacher 2 (T45F).School A (SDN2 Soasio), 32 students aged 5-7 (Grade 1), math a (3 X 35)
or 70 minutes lesson.
15 August 2011
The teacher was teaching in the classroom.
S: Students T: Teacher (T45F) The researcher: Ibu Sopantini
01:00-05:00
(About 3 minutes the class was noisy and one child was heard crying for fear of being given
a needle) (apparently local children associated guests who had bags with them as health
workers who normally came to school for vaccination by giving needles to kids – interview
with the teacher – T52F)
1. T: Before we learn today, everybody listen here, listen, let’s pray together. Pray
begin!
2. (All children were seen reciting prayer)
3. T: We would be taken our photograph, said Ibu Sopan. - the researcher. The
researcher was trying to get the children face the camera to convince them that she
was not a health worker who would give them needle in order not to scare them.
Later we can play after we finish our learning, ok!
4. “Hello-hello, hey-hey”, said the teacher calling out the children.
05:00-10:00
5. S: “Hello-hello, hey-hey” (the children responded)
6. T: “Before we start learning, let’s sing together, we will sing a song”. The Satu-satu
Aku Sayang Ibu song was sung aloud. “Listen first, Satu-Satu…” (the teacher was
commanding everyone to sing after her.
7. S: (All children were singing and was asked to clap hand when finished)
8. T: (hands claps were heard). “Now listen here, this morning we were all here, have
you had your bath?”
9. S: (in unison) “Yes, we have had our bath”.
10. T: “How about breakfast?”
11. S: some children responded yes, some no.
400
12. T: “It’s common practice here, yes that we have tea with bread or fried banana or
porridge for breakfast, isn’t it”. “Or drinking milk – yes? So who have had
breakfast?”
13. S: ‘I did,” (some children responded).
14. T: “That’s good, you supposed to have breakfast first before going to school. “Rendi,
sit down nicely”. “We are going to learn Math this morning”. “What will we learn this
morning?” the teacher repeated herself.
15. S: “Math!” (in unison) answered the children.
16. T: “That’s right!”
17. S: “Math!”
18. T: “Yes!” “Math!”, “First, I would like to ask you which hand do you use for eating?”
“Which one?” “Acih, which hand do you use for eating?” Raise up high everyone,
which hand do you use for eating!” “Tina, show me your hand for eating please!”
“When I write on the board, which hand do I use, eating hand, right? And, yes –
eating hand is right hand and not left hand, right?
19. S: “Yes, right hand!” answered the children in unison.
20. T: “This hand is used for eating!” “How about this hand, what is this hand for?” the
teacher showed the children her left hand.
21. S: “To wipe our bottom!” answered the children in unison.
22. T: “Yes!” “Now everyone raise up your right hand please!” “Raise your eating hand
up first!” “How many fingers on it?”
23. S: “Five!” the children responded in unison.
24. T: “Let’s counted together everyone!” “Sit down sweetie!” The teacher reminded
one of them who had not been sitting properly. “Let’s count!”
25. S: “One, two, three, four, five!” the children used her fingers counting in unison.
26. T: “Yes, this morning I will teach you subtraction”. We will have some counting
activities, it is to subtract numbers from one until five. “Did you know how to write
number one until five?”
27. S: “Yes, we did!” answered the children in unison .
28. T: “Really?”
29. S: “Yes, we knew how to write them.”
30. T: “Now, please write number one until five.” “Odi, Odi darling sit down properly
please!” “Cahyo, listen please. Kids, do you want to learn or chatt?
31. S: “We want to learn!” answered the children in unison.
32. T: “Don’t you want to pass and go to higher grade?
33. S: “Yes, we want to!” answered the children in unison.
34. T: “If you like to pass and go to higher grade, and you want to learn, don’t talk too
much especially when I was explaining things to you. “You must listen and pay
attention!” then the children did as they told. “Sit down nicely and listen to me, later
I will write the numbers on the board. “Everybody look at the board and please do
not be noisy!” (the children did as they told).
401
10:00-15:00 ( the teacher was busy writing on the board which was located at the front of
class and left children with no other activities – some children were seen to begin loosing
concentration.
Notes on the translation ( This note is not to be translated):
The above translation was firstly done by a translator teacher which was then corrected by
the researcher. It took the translator teacher 60 minutes to translate the first 15 minutes
interaction. It took the researcher 30 minutes to made some correction on the grammar and
styles.
15:01-20:00
34. T: “Sit down nicely Fitri!...Listen first, today we are going to learn Math and our topic
is subtraction and we are going to subtract one until five. Everybody should listen
and learn together so that all of you are able to work on the subtraction activities.
Do you know how to subtract the number or not?”
35. S: “Yes we do.” (just few of them answered)
36. T: “Now I will write an example first. “What is this sign meant?” (The teacher wrote
the addition sign on the board)
37. S: Addition (in unison) answered the children.
38. T: “What about this one?”
39. S: “Subtraction!” (in unison) answered the children.
40. T: “Pardon me/What?”
41. S: “Subtraction!” (in unison) answered the children.
42. T: “What about this one?”
43. S: “Equal!” (in unison) answered the children.
44. T: “Equal, very good!” Now, I will write an example on the board, however Intan how
many fingers do I have on my right hand?” How many fingers all together?”
45. S: “Five!” (in unison) answered the children
46. T: “How many fingers were on my right hand Mita?”
47. S: “Five!” (Mita)
48. T: “It is five on my right hand!” “When I took two fingers away, so how many are
left?”
49. S: “Three!” ( some of them answered)
50. T: “I have five fingers, when I open two fingers up so…
51. S: “(some of the students answered five and some of them said three).
52. T: “How many fingers are left?”
53. S: “Three!” (un unison) the children answered.
54. T: “How many are left?” Let’s count together
55. S: “One, two, three!” (in unison) the children answered.
56. T: “There was five numbers then I open two so….
57. S: “Three!” (in unison) the children answered.
402
58. T: “Now Odi had five fingers on his hand. “Could you raise your left hand fingers up,
Odi?” “Left hand raise up please?” “Now, Odi counted your own fingers!” How many
all of them?”
59. S: “Five!” (said Odi)
60. T: “It was five!” “Odi, If you bend your one fingers like this, so how many are left?”
61. S: “Four!” said Odi
62. T: “How many are left?”
63. S: “Four!”
64. T: “Four, very clever!” Attention to me please!” Loot at the example on the board!”
20:01-25:00
65. T: “Eyes on the board please!” Iksan, Randi. “I drew things on the board.” What
picture is it?”
66. S: “Kites!” (in unison) answered the children.
67. T: “Yes it was kites!” how many kites were there?”
68. S: “Five kites!” (in unison) answered the children.
69. T: “How many kites were there in this big square?”
70. S: “Two!” (in unison) answered the children.
71. T: “How many were there?”
72. S: “Two!” (in unison) answered the children.
73. T: Now Mita, When there was one kite flew away there will be still one left, right?”
So, when there were two kites and one of them was broken so how many left?”
74. S: “Two!” (in unison) answered the children.
75. T: “There were two kites and one of them was broken!” so how many left?
76. S: “(some children answered two, and only one child said one)
77. T: “ Who said that only one kite was still left, raise your hand up?” and who said that
there were still two kites left?” Mita, how many left if there were two kites and one
was broken?”
78. S: “Two!”
79. T: There were two kites and one of them was broken, how many was left?”
80. S: (some children answered two left and only one child said one)
81. T: “How many kites was left, Odi?”
82. S: “One!”
83. T: Odi said one kite was still left. This is Odi’s answered. Now eyes on me, who can
write number two here?”
84. S: “I can!” (some of them answered)
85. T: “Ima?” Can you come up please?”
86. S: (Ima walked to the front and wrote number two)
87. T: “Yes number two!” Can everybody write number two?”
88. S: “ Yes I can (in unison) answered the children.
403
89. T: Odi, Odi, can you try it? Yes now eyes on the board everybody! When you wrote
number two, please do it correctly! You cannot start from the bottom to up like this!
That’s not the right way! This is the correct way how to write number two. It started
from the top went down like this.
90. S: one of the child ask the teacher.
91. T: Now – what number is it?”
92. S: “One! (some children answered)
93. T: “Who can write number one”
94. S: “I can!”(in unison) answered the children.
95. T: “Ton please…
96. S: Ton walked to the front and he wrote number one on the board. How about the
others? Come up please!
97. T: Now look at first. There were two kites but one of them was broken. How many
are left?
98. S: one (only few children responded)
99. T: Somebody gave responded that there are three pictures, but this first picture,
there were two kites, and one kite was broken, so how many are left?
100. S: one (some children answered)
101. T: “There was one left here!” It means when two took away one, how many is the
answer darling?
102. S: one (some children answered)
103. T: Yes it was one.
104. S: one (some children answered)
105. T: Cahyo, what was the answer here?
106. S: One (Cahyo responded)
107. T: When there were two kites and one of them was broken, how many are left?”
108. S: One (some children answered)
109. T: There were two kites left? Are you sure if there were two kites and one of them
was broken, then there were still two kites left? Who else want to answered this
problem?
110. S: I…I..want to answered (some children answered)
111. T: Yes…Hidayat!! When there were two kites and one of them was broken, how
many are still left?”
112. S: (There are some answered sounded, some of them said two, some of them
replied one, and some of them said three)
25:01-30:00
113. T: Now, let’s see Karyo’s and Hidayat answered. Who had the right answer?
114. S: Dayat had the correct answer (some children responded)
115. T: Dayat, if there were two took away one, how many are left?”
116. S: one (few children answered)
404
117. T: “How many are left?”
118. S: one (few children answered)
119. T: But Karyo had different answered, two took away one was two. When two kites
had been broken one, it meant 1 left still. Now look at the second example.
What did I draw here?
120. S: The tumbler. (few children answered)
121. T: What picture was it?
122. S: The tumbler. (in unison) answered the children.
123. T: Ari, what did I draw here?
124. S: The tumbler, said Ari.
125. T: It was tumbler, how many are they?”
126. S: Four tumblers. (a few of them answered)
127. T: Let’s count together.
128. S: one, two, three, four. (in unison) answered the children.
129. T: Now my question is what the tumbler is for?”
130. S: The tumbler is for drinking. ( a few children answered)
131. T: Yes, may you drink the tumbler?
132. S: Yes, we may drink the tumbler. (a few of them answered)
133. T: Ahaa….you may use the tumbler for…
134. S: We may use tumbler for drinking water.
135. T: Yes…what did you drink?”
136. S: We drink some water….
137. T: Yes we drink water use the tumbler. There are some answered drink water and
some answered drink the tumbler. We cannot drink tumbler. We drink water
use tumbler. You fill tumbler with some water in it then you may drink. You are
not allowed to drink tumbler, it will get stuck here, you can drink the water that
was inside the tumbler only. Now look at here, how many big tumbler here?
138. S: four tumblers. (some children answered)
139. T: How many were broken?
140. S: Two were broken (some children answered)
141. T: For example, there were Daddy, Mommy, brother, and sister being at home.
There are for tumblers on the table. They were sitting together to have meal
and the brother’s and sister’s tumblers broke-two tumblers were broken. So
when four took away two, how many were left?
142. S: Two (in unison) answered the children.
143. T: Two tumblers are left, yes. Now I’ll give you another example. The two examples
above were pictures. Now I brought something on my hand. Please write things
I had shown you.
144. S: Candle!” ( a few children answered)
145. T: Yes..what was it?”
146. S: Candle (in unison) answered the children.
405
147. T: Yes.. this was candle. We can burn it if there was a power off.
148. S: Candle. (a few of them answered)
149. T: Do you burn candle at night or at noon?
150. S: Night time! (in unison) answered the children.
151. T: When it was dark and we cannot see anything. Do you burn the candle?
152. S: Candle! (a few of children answered)
153. T: Now please count what just I explained to you?”
30:01-35:00
154. S: One , two (a few of children answered)
155. T: Sit down nicely everyone! Don’t you want to move up to upper grade, right?”
You must listen while I’m talking in front of the class. I had not asked you to write
yet!” Now loot at here!” What was it?
156. S: candle (a few of children answered)
157. T: Let’s count again!”
158. S: One, two, three, four, five (in unison) the children answered.
159. T: How many candle are there?
160. S: Five (in unison) the children answered
161. T: How many candle are there?
162. S:Five (in unison) the children answered
163. T: Now, when I opened one candle, how many candle were left?
164. S: four, (some children answered)
165. T: How many were left?
166. S: Four (a few children answered)
167. T: Let’s count together.
168. S: one, two, three, four (in unison, student answered).
169. T: Now, when I opened two candles, how many candle were still left?
170. S: Three (there were some children answered two candles)
171. T: How many candle were left?
172. S: three (a few children answered)
173. T: Let’s count together.
174. S: One, two, three (in unison) the children answered
175. T: Now, I opened one more candle again.
176. S: Two (a few children answered)
177. T: How many candle were still left? Ada ke-skip satu nomor dari naskah asli, tapi yg
ini udah sesuai urutan.
178. S: two (in unison) the children answered
179. T: Let’s count together again!”
180. S: one, two (in unison) the children answered
181. T: Now I opened one more candle again.
182. S: one (in unison) the children answered
406
183. T: How many candle were left now?
184. S: one (in unison) the children answered
185. T: How many candle on my right hand?
186. S: four (in unison) the children answered
187. T: How many candle on my left hand?
188. S: one (in unison the children answered.
189. T: When there are five candles took away four candles, it means five candles then
four opened, how many were left?
190. S: one (a few children answered)
191. T: How many were left?
192. S: one ( a few children answered)
193. T: Now, let’s sing a song , 1,2,3 together!
194. S: (everybody sang together-all children did what the teacher asked to)
195. T: Okey, hello hello (the teacher greeted the children)
196. S: Hello, hello (the children responded back)
197. T: Please put your attention to me when you’re learning, so that you were capable
to do if I ask you a question and give the right answer. Would you able to do it or
not?
198. S: Yes, we are!” (in unison) the children answered
199. T: Are you ready to listen again? Now I gave you one more example. What is it?
200. S: Chalk..(in unison) the children answered
201. T: Is it a magic chalk?
202. S: Yes the magic chalk.
203. T: Yes, this is a magic chalk. I want to ask the 1st group. How many chalk did I hold
here?
204. S: Three (in unison) the children answered
205. T: How many were there?
206. S: Three ( a few of them answered)
207. T: How many color chalk were there?
208. S: three ( a few of them answered)
209. T: What color was it one?
210. S: Yellow (in unison) the children answered
211. T: Yes..you’re right.
212. S: Yellow (in unison) the children answered
213. T: Now, the 2nd group please answer how many color chalk was it?
214. S: two ( in unison) the children answered
215. T: What color was it one here?
216. S: Green (in unison) the children answered
217. T: Very good! Now the 3rd group please answered how many color chalk were
there?
218. S: one (in unison) the children answered
407
219. T: what color was it?
220. S: red (in unison) the children answered
221. T: So… I had three color chalk aren’t I?
222. S: Yes…three color chalk.
223. T: The color were yellow, green and..
224. S: Red (in unison) the children answered.
225. T: There were three color chalk. Now who can answer the question?
226. S: I, I..want to (a few student answered)
227. T: Now I open the green chalk, how many color chalk were still left?
35:01-40:00
228. S: Two (in unison) the children answered
229. T: how many things were left here?
230. S: two ( in unison) the children answerd
231. T: Now, there were the aqua water again, what was it?
232. S: Aqua-Aqua (in unison) the children answered
233. T: This is aqua water. Do you use aqua water to drink or to take a bath?
234. S: for drinking (in unison) the children answered.
235. T: The aqua water is for drinking, you cannot use it for a bath because you will
need so much aqua water for a bath and you must need a clean water for
washing. The aqua water is special for drinking. Now, how many aqua glass do I
have?
236. S: Two (in unison) the children answered
237. T: When I throw two water aqua tumblers away, how many were they still left?
238. S: Zero. (in unison) the children answered.
239. T: How many were still left?
240. S: Zero. (in unison) the children answered
241. T: Nothing or zero and when I borrow one of them, how many were still left?
242. S: One ( in unison) the children answered
243. T: Yes!!! You are right
244. S: one ( in unison) the children answered
245. T: Very clever student! Now look at here again. This one called one numeral. What
number was it?
246. S: Five (in unison) the children answered
247. T: What number was it?
248. S: Five (in unison) the children answered
249. T: Are you sure? This is number five or three?
250. S: five (in unison) the children answered
251. T: Wow!!! Very clever students! What about this number?
252. S: Four! (in unison) the children answered
253. T: What about this number?
408
254. S: Three (in unison) the children answered
255. T: What number was it?
256. S: 3 (in unison) the children answered
257. T: 3 (what about this number)?
258. S: 2 (in unison) the children answered
259. T: 2 (what about this number)?
260. S: 1 (in unison) the children answered
261. T: Let’s look at those numbers carefully. When I put them in order and then count
together, where do you have to start from?
262. S: 5(one child replied)
263. T: Please count from the first (beginning)
264. S: 1 (in unison) the children answered
265. T: You must start from number one, don’t you? After that what is the next
number?
266. S: 2 (in unison) the children answered
267. T: What is next?
268. S: 3 (in unison) the children answered
269. T: What is next?
270. S: 4 (in unison) the children answered
271. T: 4, What is next?
272. S: 5 (in unison) the children answered
273. T: So, when we put them in order, number one is first, right? What is the next
number?
274. S: 2 (in unison) the children answered
275. T: What is next?
276. S: 3 (in unison) the children answered
277. T: What is next?
278. S: 4,5 (in unison) the children answered
279. T: 5, now please come up to the front who can write number 5 on the board.
280. S: I..I..want (everybody responded)
281. T: Odi, come to the front please.
282. S: Odi come up to the front.
283. T: Yes…clever Odi! Clap your hand children! Who can write number 3 on the board.
284. S: I want…(everybody responded)
285. T: Ian please come to the front!
286. S: Ian walked to the front
287. T: Yes, very clever. Give a clap for Ian. Who can write number 4?
288. S: I can (in unison) the children answered
289. T: Putri please come to the front
290. S: Putri walked to the front
409
291. T: Yes It is 4. Putri this is the way how to write 4. You must drag down like this.
When you write from the bottom then go up, that’s not the correct way, I can
see some of you did it. It should be from the top go down like this. Now I want
to have Asi to write number 2 on the board please. Asi please come to the front
and write number 2 please.
292. S: (Asi walked to the front)
293. T: Very good Asi! , give a clap for her everyone! Next who want to write no.1
please try Ina!
294. S: (Ina walked to the front)
40:01-45:00
295. T: Yes…give a clap for Ina everyone! Yes…Wandi, could you please write no. 6. I
want to see how do you write it.
296. S: Wandi walked to the front.
297. T: Give a clap for Wandi everyone. After seeing all the examples from your friend,
had you been understood or not yet? Anyone still didn’t understand, did you?
Puput! Could you please write no. 2 on the board?
298. S: (Puput walked to the front)
299. T: Yes, give a clap for Puput everyone! Randi could you please come to the front
first, Dayat, Hidayat, Noval and Imam please come to this front class. Hidayat
move to the front, Noval and Ida move to the front too, Randi move up please.
300. S: All students are laughing at them.
301. T: Come to the front here please! Let’s count together, go!
302. S: 1,2,3,4,5
303. T: Please repeat again start from here!
304. S: 1,2,3,4,5
305. T: Didan, how many ears do you have?
306. S: two (said Didan)
307. T: Yes you’re right, Ina how many ears do you have?
308. S: 2
309. T: Hidayat, how many nose do you have?
310. S: 1
311. T:Novan, how many eyes is yours?
312. S: 2
313. T: Wandi, how many head is yours?
314. S: 1
315. T: Now, five of you sang together nicely!
316. S: (all did as they told)
317. T: yes..give a clap for them. Now called Randi’s name first. Randi please have a
seat!
318. S: Randi please sit down (in unison) the children called him.
410
319. T: Next, one more please
320. S: Noval sit down please (in unison) the children called him.
321. T: move on
322. S: Puput sit down please (in unison) the children called her.
323. T: move on
324. S: Imam sit down please (in unison) the children called him.
325. T: move on
326. S: Ijam sit down please(in unison) the children called him.
327. T: This is the world soccer player. Zidan, Zidane where are you from?
328. S: England ( a few student responded)
329. T: Zidane is a strong soccer player. Now with some examples from your friend, I
would ask you some questions and you must answer correctly. Who had all
correct, I will give you number one!
330. S: Horray!! (all children were screaming)
331. T: All of you in this class are clever. You already had known the addition activities.
No one were allowed to open and close the book. Now please put your pencil
on your table.
332. S: Already teacher! (all children responded)
45:01-50:00 333. T: Now all, Had you put your book on the desk?
334. S: Yes we had! (some children responded)
335. T: Now look at here please, Noval, please write 2,3,4 straightly. Listen please, who
had not listened. He will give the answer here. What about this? Any answer?
336. S: Yes there is..(in unison) the children answered
337. T: What picture was on top?
338. S: Table (in unison)
339. T: This is only the example. The example that colour black here is just example of 2
tables picture. There were two table and one of it was broken. How many was
left?
340. S: 1 (a few of them answered)
341. T: How many were left?
342. S: 1
343. T: This is only the example with the answer. Ajim please pay attention, there were
2 tables. What number should you write under the picture table? Mita what
number is that?
344. S: Cake! (some children answered)
345. T: Not yet! What number should your write underneath here?
346. S: 1 ( a child responded)
347. T: here, look at in here please!
348. S: 2 (some children answered)
349. T: So..what number again underneath here?
411
350. S: 1 (in unison)
351. T: 2 took away 1 equal how many? Equal how many?
352. S: 1 (a few of them responded)
353. T: And then please write that second one please! What number is in here? Please
you write with your own hand. Please draw hand here. What picture was it?
354. S: Bread ( a few of them responded)
355. T: I cut the bread then I put it on the plate. I want to cut it and put it in here. This is
the bread. Had you eaten the bread?
356. S: Already (in unison)
357. T: 2 loaf of bread were eaten one, how many left?
358. S: 1 (in unison)
359. T: wait the minute, don’t answer yet please! Later please write your answer in the
box.
360. S: The one that’s opened? (a child asked)
361. T: Yes. That one that opened. Now please draw the 2nd one! What picture is it?
362. S: Bread! (a child responded)
363. T: Nop…the 2nd one please!
364. S: Kites! (in unison)
365. T: How many kites were there?
366. S: 3 ( a few of chdn answered)
367. T: When there is one kites broken, how many was still left? Next , what is on the
3rd picture?
368. S: Chicken. (a few of children responded)
369. T: How many were the chicken?
50:01-55:00- mulai jam 10:56 (Kamis, 20Des12)
370. S: (All children answered noisily)
371. T: Now I want to hear your answer. If you want to pass the grade, you have to
study and be diligent. Please write the number and the answer. Now, what do you
have to write?
372. S: 2 (in unison)
373. T: Number 2, if there were 2 bread and 1 was eaten, how many were left?
374. S: 1 (a few children responded)
375. T:Write inside here please. (the teacher walked around to check children’s answer
and the class was noise). The task was different, let’s try again come on! Ian don’ t
cheat please! Who liked to cheat, it meant that!
376. S: Teacher, don’t ask me to write please. (a child called)
377. T: Yes..
378. S: Teacher, I was finish. (some children called)
379. T: How many were those kites? Let’s count them and do it slowly!
380. S: 3 ( a child answered)
412
381. T: 3
382. S: Teacher, I was finish. ( a child called out)
383. T: Yes…what a clever student!
384. S: Teacher…
385. T: Yeess…
386. S: ……..(53:20)
387. T: Now write his number, yes everybody will get 100
388. S: Teacher, I’m finished-finished (some children called)
389. T: Yes, good-good. Please bring it to me to the front who had been finished.
390. S: Here it is , teacher (some children called out)
391. T: May I borrow your work for a moment please! In fact all of you are very clever
and had been doing the correct answer. I gave to all of you 100 score.
392. S: we…we (Everybody looked very excited)
55:01-60:00
393. T: How many is that Ina? Whoever looked at the note book and peeped the answer
will not get the score.
394. S: Wooo…(the children were making noise)
395. T: I had checked all your work and the score is 100. Okay…who had been finished
the work now please write a welcome sign. Remember to write a name on your
paper. Ajis, whoelse, Nunuk, Odi, Cahyo (the teacher demonstrate how to write
their names on the board). Who was able to write the name independently…
396. S: Horray! (a child shouted very happily)
397. T: This one is not done yet! Please write Ajis, firstly please write J then I (the
teacher showed how to spell and write Ajis’ name.) Ajis, please look at me first.
A, J, I. Had you been copied? Odi, did you write your name on? Please did it first.
Please write “T” already “U” finished, “A” Did everybody write the name on?
Had you done it or not?
398. S: Yes already finished..(a few children responded)
399. T: Please sit down on your chair. I’ll come to you later.
400. S: Teacher..teacher (one child called)
60:01-65:00 401. T: Yes…which one is finished? I gave you 100 score. Hold it first okay?
402. S: (every children were talking each other)
403. T: Well…everybody got 100 score. If you want to pass to higher grade 2 you must
learn. Sit down sit down first. Look at here. (the class was noisy around 4
minutes, the children were chatting each other)
65:01-70:00 404. T: Not yet, not yet to get out to play! Hey…don’t get out first, Puput,…get out one
by one please
405. S: (The children were very busy talking to their friends)
406. T: Hello-hello. (the teacher remind the children used the special greeting)
413
407. S: Helo-hello. (the children responded)
408. T: Helo-hello. ( the teacher remind the children again)
409. S: Hello-hello. (the children responded)
70:01-75:00 410. T: Now please put your hand up if you get 100 score? Dandi, Dandi what score did
you get? Do you get 100 score right? Tasa, what is your score? 100 right? Yes
listen please. The people who got 100 score will be given a homework. Please
do it at home. Write the answer at home. Now look at to the board. There were
2 bread and one was eaten so it will be one still left right? The 2nd was about the
kites. How many kites was it? Now open your book please, rise it up! Please
write Homework in your book! Don’t use the one on the board.
411. S: (the children were not listening and they were busy talking each other)
412. T: Did everybody had the book and pencil on the table?
413. S: Yes we had..(some children responded)
414. T: Yadi, which book do you need? Had everybody been ready! Please go up there
first!
415. S: Teacher! (a child called)
416. T: Please attention and looked to the board. I will write the homework sign here.
Had you been copied?
417. S: Yes already (some children responded)
418. T: Had you been ready? T: Had you been ready everybody?
419. S: Yes we had (a few children responded)
420. T: Let’s sing together first “Bangun pagi aku terus…”
421. S: Mandi (in unison) the children answered
422. T: One, two, three…
423. S: (All children sang together)
75:01-80:00 424. T: Oke…clap your hand together everyone! Now please attention to the board, I
will write homework. What is a homework? Work for….?
425. S: (the children cannot answer)
426. T: Homework..Homework..
427. S: Home..
428. T: Please write the answer at home.
429. S: some children were menyanti sendiri.
430. T: Please write your homework first-homework!
431. S: I had finished (a child responded)
432. T: Had you finished?
433. S: Yes we had..(some children responded)
434. T: Hang on children, please write the homework sign first and then out to play. Had
you been done it?
435. S: Not yet ( a few children responded)
414
436. T: K, write K already? U, Ku, had you written it yet?
437. S: Not yet ( a few children responded)
438. T: K, had you done it or not yet?
439. S: (there heard some children said not yet and already)
440. T: R, had you written it yet? A,
441. S: Not yet ( a child responded)
442. T: R, did you write Cahyo?
443. S: Already, I had.
444. T: NG, had you written it. K, A.N
445. S: Not yet! (a child responded)
446. T: Now who want to try reading, KU, R, A plus NG. Read it please? (the teacher
taught the spelling)
447. S: Kurang! (in unison)
448. T: K, A, and N, read it please?
449. S: Kan ( a few children responded)
450. T: Kurangkan, please repeat again!
451. S: Kurangkan (in unison)
452. T: Yes…please answer again later at home. Practice the subtraction activities at
home again. Can I draw a balloon here or not?
453. S: Yes you can?
454. T: Now I drew this 3 balloon, can you try it?
455. S: Yes…(some children responded). Teacher, I am finished (some children called
456. T: How many balloon was it now?
457. S: 3 ( a child responded)
458. T: 3,
459. S: Finished please teacher! (some children called)
460. T: Yes very clever. I crossed this one pop-up balloon. The one that crossed here
meant popped. It has been popped. It means our one balloon was popped. How
many was still left?
461. S: 2 ( a child responded)
462. T: 3 took away 1 equal…… please write the answer at home. Had you done it
already?
463. S: I am finished ( a child responded)
464. T: There are 3 balloon and one is crossed. The one crossed meant popped, when
this 3 balloon was crossed one out, it meant 3 took away how many? What it the
answer then? Can you do it or not?
465. S: Yes I can (a few student responded)
466. T: I hope you can do it. Please write the number in the box.
80:01-85:00 467. S: I have finished teacher! ( a child responded) I am not done yet! (a child
responded)
415
468. T: Okay…that’s good!
469. S: there were some children responded finished and not yet.
470. T:Look at me please! For no.2 what will I draw? What picture do you like?
471. S: the children said a bottle, a flower, a tumbler.
472. T: Okay now I want to draw a flower.
473. S: A flower picture ( a child responded)
474. T: Later on I will draw a bicycle. This is a sun flower.
475. S: Teacher .. I am finished (a child responded)
476. T: Okay..
477. S: I am not finished yet (a child responded)
478. T: Now how many flower picture did I draw?
479. S: 2 ( a few children responded)
480. T: Excuse me! How many picture flower is it?
481. S: there are children responded 3, 4 and 5
482. T: This flowers were not fresh 2. Those 2 un fresh flowers will be falling. I will cross
them off. If 4 took away 1, how many were still left? There are 4 flowers and the two
of them were falling, how many were left? 4 took away 2 how many was still left?
Now the number 3. Please write number 3 in the box. Had you done it already?
483. S: Yes, already (a few children responded)
85:01-90:00 484. T: Now the third here I will draw some trees. There were 2 trees. Later when you
get home please write the answer. Please write the answer in here, okay?
485. S: Teacher..I am finished (tired maybe)…teacher finished please (some children
called)
486. T: Okay…please sit down the one whose finished. Close your book and put it inside
your bag. If you want to go out, you must be able to answer this question first
and if you cannot answer my question you must stay inside the class. So
whoever cannot answer the question, you will not allowed to go home. Later
when you get home please take this home. When there is no electricity at home
it will be dark wouldn’t it? Had you been ready everyone?
487. S: Yes we had been ready(a few children answered)
488. T: Close your book please and put it inside your bag. Please show this to you
parents first when you arrived at home. When you come back tomorrow, I will
check it and give the score. Please bring it again tomorrow to school, okay?
489. S: Come on go home! (one child talked)
490. T: Not yet! Already?
491. S: I’m not ready yet?
492. T: Are you ready children? Everybody are ready?
493. S: Yes we are (a few children answered)
494. T: Before we get home, let’s sing together “Topi saya bundar”. Let’s do it together,
one, two, three.
416
495. S: The children sang together.
496. T: Okay, clap hand everybody. Now we closed our Math lesson today and time for
recess then. Everybody may go out. Listen first, don’t play run around, later will
be the 2nd lesson and we will learn reading activities.
497. S: Teacher, I know reading!
498. T: Ooo really, that was good! Everybody ready?
499. S: Yes, we are
500. T: Please stand where you are. Okay ..are you ready to get out? You are not
allowed to run. Now please jump with one leg, I will count first, are you ready
everyone?
90:01-95:00 501. S: Yes we are…
502. T: Are you ready? I will count first, 1,2,3
503. S: 1,2,3 (the children jump with one leg while counting)
504. T: Repeat again (because the children did not jump in unison then the teacher ask
them to do it again)
505. S: 1,2,3 (the children jump with one leg while counting)
506. T: Stop! Who had water on the top. Ibu guru punya menja (naskah asli) Please boys
out first to take the water and the girls walked.
507. S: The children were out of the class. The situation were quiet because the children
played outside.
508. T: Please wash your hand first before eating, I’m sorry forgot not to put water right
here.
509. S: Teacher-teacher may I go play over there? (a child asked)
510. T: Oh..No no, Don’t I tell you not to play longer do you? Later, the Headmaster
would be angry.
Post-lesson interview 95:01-100:00
511. (the teacher were talking to the researcher)
512. T: Eee…don’t come closer. Odi was crying because he was afraid to get needle. In
fact the teacher didn’t give a needle right? There was no needle but Odi was crying.
Who had this water?
513. S: That’s not, who had that water before! (Odi)
514. T:What about over there? Who had that water?
515. S: Not mine!
516. T: Had you been drinking? Already. You may eat outside please. Please play outside
first. (started the minutes of 98th, the teacher were talking to ibu Sopantini)
517. T: Miss Mitri, later tomorrow would be?
518. So: Thursday isn’t it? Yesterday you said Thursday right!
417
519. T: Yes, that’s right.
520. So: By the way, how long had you been teaching?
521. T: I was been designated since ’82. I was teaching at Pulau Panjang in Halmahera.
522. So: I see. Since ’82 right? So it’d been 25 years long right?
523. T: Yes, I had 2 children and they’r in Japan for study.
524. So: I see, what did you teach for 25 years long? And what year level classes did you
teach?
525. T: I had moved from BTN Panama in the Pulau Tiga. Then I moved to one in all year
level then moved up again at…, I taught year 4, year 2. And I moved to Tokyo in…I
became a religion teacher. And then I moved back to Kampong to teach year 4 that
year. Then I moved here in ’93.
100:01-105:00
526. So: in 93, its had been 14 years ago right?
527. T: Since in 93, I had met 3 headmasters.
528. So: Oo really?
529. T: The 3 headmasters were ak Badi, Bu Murasmi and Pak Acan now.
530. So: Whose Pak?
531. T: Pak Bagi, bu Murasmi, and Pak Acan here. When Pak Badi was the headmaster, I
was teaching year 3 level. When Ibu Murasmi was the headmaster, I was
teaching year 1 until now.
532. So: You had been teaching for 10 years long, right?
533. T: Yes, it was quiet long. If there is colleague helped me, they said they’re not
capable to teach year 1 class. With ibu Mitri, Ibu Muna, Ibu Khadijah, they’re not
capable. So that’s why I was appointed to teach year 1.
534. So: What did they say, when they felt not capable?
535. T: Yes, When it was year 1, I must come first. Before the parents coming, I must
come first. When ibu Mitri was taught year 1 class, it would be late. That’s
maybe the reason why..
536. So: Beside time, what other things that teacher thought was difficult?
537. T: Maybe they’re not capable or I don’t know what’s that.
538. So: Is it because their voice is not loud or …
539. T: The voice is not aloud that’s probably is but it might be related with her health.
540. So: I see, may the health. What about you? It had been 10 years right?
541. T: Yes, it had been 10 years.
542. So: yes…when the time was..Do you remember when is the hardest time teaching
in year 1 class?
543. T: Now is the time when it’s hard to manage things.
544. So: What made you hard?
545. T: When something come from which…
418
546. So: The things that made you…
547. T: Yes..like when I have to explain and then there was a child dancing, it now
became get used to. When it was the first time…until the adjusting moment
now, it’s been handled bit by bit.
548. So: Oh I see…in what week up to now?
549. T: Now was the 4th week.
550. So: It had been a month the children learning right?
551. T: yes… it was
552. So: Since they were come in the 1st day right?
553. T: Since 16th July.
554. So: Since the 16th July right? So they’re were been familiar with you now?
555. T: It had been get used to. I made them so. When the class was noise, the
important things is the clean class. The important is they knew how to write, to
read, and to count. So sometimes I didn’t follow the program. I create the
program by myself, it meant you know right? When I just follow the program, it
might be late. I personally felt block.
556. So: Oo..I see.
557. T: So… kalau naik,,
558. So: How many student in year 1 now?
559. T: There were 28 children. They didn’t go to Kindergarten yet because their parents
asked to put in year 1 class.
560. So: What age are they?
561. T: They were 5 years or more.
562. So: There is no…
563. T: You meant 6, 7 that’s good 8
564. So: Oke,,
565. T: There were 2 children absent though.
105:01:110:00 566. So: So, Had they been at Kindy before in general?
567. T: The others had not been yet.
568. So: In your class, how many did they go to Kindy?
569. T: There are about 6 children didn’t go to Kindy in year 1, 2, 3, 4.
570. So: 6 children didn’t go to Kindy did they?
571. T: Yes it was.
572. So: Had you ever been talked to parents why those children didn’t go to Kindy?
573. T: They said that the school was far from their house and they must stay at school
if their kids were at Kindy and they weren’t have time to washing and cooking
e.t.c.
574. So: I see..
575. T: Yes, it is because their condition.
419
576. So: It is because the parents were busy, isn’t it?
577. T: It is, because their parents didn’t have time.
578. So: Were all the Kindy students needed to be watched by their parent generally?
579. T: Yes they were needed their parents to stay at school and the kids will cry if the
parents left them alone.
580. So: So, there were Mom and children who been at school.
581. T: If there was not mom staying then the sister would. When there is money the
parents will be able to pay a baby sitter, but when the parents were poor, then
the Mom herself took them to school.
582. So: Ehmm that diagram, when was it made?
583. T: It had been long time ago.
584. So: It is made by self?
585. T: My husband made it.
586. So: Oo really!
587. T: My husband made this, this and that and that.
588. So: Oo I see, can you explain why did you make that?
589. T: Because the supervisor asked to do so for every class.
590. So: O really! What year did it make?
591. T: Since year 2001 if I’m not mistaken.
592. So: Since that year? It had been 5 years then.
593. T: Before hand it had been like that. It is because I came here at 2001 then I made
it since then.
594. So: I see..
595. T: Before hand there should be a diagram, a 7K, an attendance board and students
list.
596. So: I see…
597. T: And there must be Plas, Program, score list, attendance, those are only an
administrative requirement.
598. So: Yes, for the administrative things.
599. T: Time Scheduled and the job responsibility should be there. But I have to sweep
the class by myself.
600. So: It was the daily routine job right?
601. T: yes…
602. So: The one on top were daily routine scheduled right? What kinds of job were
they?
603. T: There were sweeping in the morning, it’s only written up there, in reality I did
the sweeping by myself and closing the window when the class over.
604. So: Why was it written up there? What for was it?
605. T: Yeess…
606. So: Why was it written up there? What for was it?
420
607. T: That’s when the supervisor or the principal came to see the schedule of how
many did sweeping the floor or maybe it’s only for reading-I don’t know…but
who did sweeping the floor, they don’t know yet!
608. So: I see..
609. T: It was only for administrative things!
610. So: I see, Its only for administrative things but the teacher did the sweeping and it
was the children’s name written.
611. T: The children did the sweeping.
612. So: In your opinion, why was it so? It was children’s name written on the job
responsibility but the teacher did it.
613. T: Yes, in my opinion because the children in year 1 was still little and they don’t
know how to sweep the floor. When there was a supervisor asked why the
children didn’t do sweeping the floor. Because they still don’t know how to do
it, later I will sweep it.
110:01-115:00 614. So: I see…
615. T: It had been so sweaty (while laughing). The children were busy playing. There
are some parents being caring but some aren’t.
616. So: What do you mean by being caring?
617. T: It meant that they want to know their children progress. Is my children able to
do this and that or not? Is he understand about things or not? Usually they
came to know and asked me about their children. But the others didn’t care.
618. So: What about the other children?
619. T: The others, they had been…liked Wandi. He had been raised up by the nature.
When it’s home, he would put the book back and then just out like that. The
parents will not know when he will be coming home, whether at night time or
afternoon, the parents didn’t care.
620. So: I see….
621. T: So there are many kinds of characters.
622. So: Okay …when it was counted the children like Wandi, Is that Wandi?
623. T: Yes he is…
624. So: Wandi is that big boy, isn’t he?
625. T: Yes…the one who walked together with you.
626. So: Yes… how old is he?
627. T: He had been 8 years old this year. Last year he was grounded.
628. So: Oo… he was grounded.
629. T: Because he didn’t understand like that. I talked to his parent to put him in the
handicap school (SLB). It seemed he’s not happy being there and he ran away,
he came to this school and disturbed others. But I felt that’s okay and I became
get used to it. Wandi get used to get out the class when I didn’t watch him even
though he was reminded.
421
630. So: The one who like Wandi is only…
631. T: Yes…he is the only one. He came to the class first and I reminded to the others.
There was a clan leader in year 1-he is Wandi.
632. So: O… was it called a clan leader?
633. T: Kalau Wandi ini kepala ini semua. (sambil ketawa). Kalau waktu pertama itu,
semua orang tua tunggu semua. Nanti kalau waktunya pulang. (ora mudeng
mau translate ke Inggris-tdk tahu yg maksudnya). Weleh-weleh susunan
bhs Indonesia yg aneh.
634. So: When was it?
635. T: That’s when it was the first week of school.
636. So: I see…
637. T: All parents were staying and sat over here. They waited for their children to
learn at school and got back home together.
638. So: That’ s happened for how many days at first?
639. T: It was around a week until two weeks.
640. So: One week, two weeks right?
641. T: When the children was at Kindy, the parents stayed until the children get home.
But when the children were in Primary school the parents are not allowed to
stay anymore. The Mom must go home to do cocking, washing, so when the
children get back from school, the meal was ready. When Mom should stay
here, the meal was not ready yet at the time the children get back from school if
Mom must stay here again. Jadi itu biasa sudah, finally there was only one
Mom who left watched the child at school.
642. So: I see…
643. T: But I talked to them that Moms may go home. Later at 11:00 may come back to
pick them up.
644. So: These children lived near hear.
645. T: There were some of them lived far away.
646. So: The one who lived at the most far distance, how long did they reach here and
what transport did they ride, did they walk or…?
647. T: For year 1 children, there were some of them as far as my house. They ride on
ojek,,
648. So: Pardon! The children rode on an ojek?
649. T: The parents came to school
650. So: Oo,, how many meters was that? How far was it?
651. T: It was less than 1 miles (kilometer) When the parents was asked to write on a
paper for administrative things, they didn’t put any information.
652. So: I see..
653. T: The parents didn’t write anything.
654. So: Do you mean the parent should write on the form?
422
655. T: Yes… Parents didn’t put information how many miles was the distance from
home to school, passed what street, like that! Where the address is, where do
they life. Do they live in this area or in this kampong.
115:01-120:00 656. So: I see…What do you think by that? Why do the parents won’t write on the form.
657. T: Maybe the parents were afraid to make a mistake.
658. So: Ya..baru pertama kali beli roti yang begini ini.
659. T: I know bu, it was difficult to have meal in here.
660. So: Bisa, biasa, masuk.
661. T: Ibu Mitri was the owner of that restaurant over there. Ibu Mitri’s house is near
there. You walked down on the street then turn right. Rumah makan yang
ada pantai itu. The restaurant that closed to the beach.
662. So: I see…
663. T: What number of the houses, the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th. Yes the 4th house.
664. So: A restaurant.
665. T: You go this way, turn left go straight to the house of the 4th. That’s Ibu Mitri
house. You could just walk there.
666. So: That’s not the one which close to the market right there?
667. T: The far market.
668. So: I see…
669. T: Over here-here though
670. So: Did you study at Teacher Education School.
671. T: I was from Teacher Ed.School. Yesterday this pak said that’s been penyetaraan
D2.
672. So: Oo ya,,
673. T: I was graduated in 2000 from D2. On that time ibu said that I have to get
undergraduate, but my children had been to college. He had 2 children now. My
3rd children was in high school and still in grade 1. And the 4th was being in high
school at year 3. My 3rd daughter was in high school at year 3. My 4th son was in
high school at year 1. I think if this children later. This friends asked for taking
undergraduate.
674. So: Where can you go for study undergraduate?
675. T: I must go to Ternate.
676. So: Oo…what about your teaching career when you must go for study again to get
undergraduate.
677. T: Kalau kenalnya itu, bikin-bikin begitu kan, tidak mengajar lagi. Di kasih
izin.
678. So: Oke.
679. T: Maybe I can go after teaching. I can take the afternoon schedule for lecture and
go home straight after school.
423
680. So: Where did you get the teaching method teacher center, student center like
that? Those theory of knowledge…
681. T: I got them from my friend in KKG, micro teaching, the teaching best practices in
the forum and autodidact.
682. So: In your opinion, what method did you apply in teaching? Did you use the
student center or teacher center method?
683. T: The Teaching you mean?
684. So: In your opinion-the way you teach just now, what method did you apply? Was
it student center or teacher center? What was it?
685. T: Teaching tool,,
686. So: Just now,, it seems.
687. T: Democrazy.
688. So: I don’t think so. Just now I only sat at the back and took some notes just like
this. Could you read can’t you. Please had a look my writing, because it will be as
a resource to write, what do you think?
120:01-125:00
689. T: (the teacher was reading the notes of researcher)
690. So: Did you remember that? This morning there was a child crying when I arrived.
691. T: It was a child crying and then I took the attendance list.
692. So: That’s right. I took a note to remind me that there was a child crying and he
said that he will be given a needle, wouldn’t he?
693. T: Yes,,
694. So: He thought that I was the health worker giving a needle.
695. T: He was afraid because there was usually a health worker came once a year to
give needle to year 1 students.
696. So: yes,,
697. T: So, he had been afraid since you arrived in the class.
698. So: Yes, after you finished checking the attendance then praying, what kinds of
recite praying was it?
699. T: Praying for study.
700. So: Was it only once before study the new lesson or
701. T: We must do pray first before study.
702. So: Was it only in the morning or you may change it everyday?
703. T: We pray again before home time.
704. So: I see that there were twice to pray everyday.
705. T: We pray twice per day.
706. So: I see..
707. T: Later when it was home time we pray again.
708. So: Was it an obligation or something?
709. T: It was kind of an obligation for all classes started from year 1 up to 6. It was
become a common habit for Tidorenesse.
424
710. So: Since you were teaching for 25 years, did you remember whether there was
somebody introducing that praying?
711. T: There had been praying habit since I became a teacher for the first time. There
had been a PMPS, having meal at school again. PMPS to.
712. So: Yes,
713. T: So before and after study there was a recite praying. Before meal time, sit down
together, having meal in gather and recite praying first as well.
714. So: In what year was PMPS there?
715. T: I forgot what year was it.
716. So: Was it in this school or different school?
717. T: In this school here.
718. So: Was there any PMPS in this school?
719. T: Yes there was long time ago. I didn’t remember in what year, I forgot again.
720. So: Around for how many years was the PMPS implemented?
721. T: 3 years or I don’t remember.
722. So: For what classes was it?
723. T: It was for year 1 up to 6 classes.
724. So: I see, what did the children usually eat?
725. T: Green bean, boiled eggs, fried rice, yellow rice and bread.
726. So: I see, was it before 2005?
727. T: Yes, around that year.
728. So: So I took these some notes and showed them to you. Later on when you asked
who took a bath and had breakfast. I wrote all of them to show you and for me
to make as a resources to explain many more. For a moment I just wrote the
things I still remember and able to write. Were those questions often asked to
children?
729. T: Yes,,
125:01-130:00 730. So: Yes, the children usually liked to call out “me” me, right?
731. T: Yes, when there was a question whether they know the answer or not they will
keep saying “me” teacher me teacher, they’re just copy cat.
732. So: The one who understand will say “Me! And the who don’t know as well,,
733. T: Yes, the one I called yesterday were still shy and the others were willing to write
and some weren’t.
734. So: Yes, but if. Yeess, maybe all will say me-me like that ya.
735. T: I am
736. So: If in your opinion,,
737. T: There were one said saya bu guru, saya bu guru, like that.
738. So: Yes, in your opinion, could you differentiate which one who know and which
one did not know.
739. T: Yes I could
425
740. So: Could you?
741. T: If that I know.
742. So: What is the different?
743. T: The different was when “saya” like a choir usually are the one I called who don’t
want to write. While the clever one, they straight to write. They did what they
asked to.
744. So: Oo…I see. Oke
745. T: The children will be capable to count 1,2,3 until 10 when they’d been asked to
count. While this one was able to count 1 until 10. Yes, the one who had not
been in Kindy however they were able to do. The two children who was sitting
in front of you cannot write.
746. So: I see, when they said “saya-saya” but they cannot do, what do you usually do
to them?
747. T: I will call them to write while others were at recess. I will give the example first
then they will copy it. By doing so, it was better rather than there were still
many others in the class. Before home time, I will call the one who was not able
to do writing. I will ask them to write 1, when they already know it continue to
write 2 on the book and they’re allowed to go home. The children who had not
been at Kindy were success when I taught them, because I had that method.
748. So: How did you know about that?
749. T: I learnt by myself. I had a curiosity. Until now when there were not fit into, I’ll try
this one, when it still didn’t work, I’ll try different method. I used to had a
private lesson at home. The children who didn’t know how to read and write, I’ll
call them to come in the afternoon for free. I volunteered myself to teach them
and talked to parents because the parents will be afraid to send the children if
they had to pay. That was in 2001, now not anymore. Later if there is a chance
I’ll choose the one who need to come back to school. Yesterday we learn at
somebody house and everybody was able to write. I could control them if they
were a few but when they were many I couldn’t control them because they tend
to disturb each other. So…I had many different method.
750. So: They were allowed to be outside, weren’t they?
751. T: yes,,
752. So: The children
753. T: I teach them using my own way.
754. So: How many children often don’t know from all the 28?
755. T: There were only 3 of them. Wandi was able to do little bit. Only 3 of them. I
moved there the one who was still slow. In fact Imam and Rani had been okay. It
was only 3 of them who don’t know yet. Imam, Rani and Wandi put them all
here.
756. So: Yes,..kalau tulis itu maksudnya bisa anuk,, ee,, to write using a correct
movement you mean?
426
757. T: Yes,,
758. So: I meant writing,,
759. T: O… the one who don’t know writing. There were who wrote 2 like this, and write
3 started from under and up, 5 as well. …………………when wrote number 3 like
this is correct, but from the writing technique was wrong. It should be from the
top go down. The arrow sign in the book should be started from the top go
down. That’s the way the technique writing.
130:01-135:00 760. So: So…a technique writing is how to shape using a correct movement, isn’t it?
761. T:Yes, it was writing.
762. So: What about reading. Had you been done it yet?
763. T: Reading, in the first week I taught them some letters first. It was difficult to start
introduce A until Z letters. I just touch them a bit to do intro for Bahasa
Indonesia. A, B, C until Z first to repeat many times first. After that A,B,C
mentioned in a large group. When I will start to teach reading, the children
should start with ma, ma, mama first (the way how to spell), the words Ani, Ina,
Mami, Ana, Iin, Uun.. for example.
764. So: I see…so they have to spell all the letters using the correct sound don’t they?
765. T: Yes, with the correct sound.
766. So: So, you meant that when the children were able to utter the letter in order
correctly, they were categorized as the capable children in reading.
767. T: Or they’re able to utter the letters by themselves. What letter was it? They
straight to answer m,a , n,a was read ma, na like that. Later I called them one by
one then I could define who is capable or who’re not. When he had known ma,
na. He will think the next again. Bagaimana, he had not known yet. There were
some just like that.
768. So: Yes, what kind of book do you use to teach reading?
769. T: There are many kinds of books.
770. So: I see, what publisher and may I see them?
771. T: They are from Intan Pariwara then from Aneka Ilmu. (the teacher was walking to
get the books) and learn Science and Math. IPA, IPS are just started this year.
Last year we had been using Bahasa, Math, PPKn, Penjaskes and Mulok.
772. So: Excuse me, may I go out for a moment please?
135:01-140:00 773. So: What time will children enter in this time?
774. T: Later they will learn reading only.
775. So: What time did children go to bed usually, in average.
776. T: There are some did it at 9 until 10. There some went to bed at 8, and there are
some who didn’t take a nap. Although I said to them please go home to eat,
taking a nap first, then woke up to play little bit, took a bath, afternoon and
night study.
427
777. So: Why should be taking a nap?
778. T: Because they were schooling once but many times got sick at school when they
had less time to sleep at night.
779. So: Did the children appear not enough sleeping?
780. T: Yes,
781. So: When the children went to bed at 9, what had been they done?
782. T: The parents didn’t control them. What kinds of parent first…
783. So: I see, Had the children being at school till 12, aren’t they?
784. T: The children were at school till 11 am.
785. So: Do they go home afterwards?
786. T: There will be some out playing.
787. So: Where did they play?
788. T: They played at the school yard, and there are some who played up here and
some up to that field.
789. So: I see…did they play bring a ball, didn’t they?
790. T: Yes, they brought a ball and run around with friends.
791. So: Were they running nicely, weren’t they? (selengkoan2)???????????
792. T: Yes they will running nicely.
793. So: Did they watch TV at home?
794. T: Watching,,
795. So: Yes, watching TV, were there many parents had TV?
796. T: Yes they were many parents had TV.
797. So: almost all of them having TV or?
798. T: Yes, almost parents had TV.
799. So: I see,
800. T: I think the children didn’t do enough study because they watched TV a lot.
801. So: Watching TV right?
802. T: When I gave them a homework then they didn’t finished it, because they
watched TV and they forgot. So straight after home, please tell your parents
about this homework. There was a homework to do and when you cannot do it,
please asked Mom, Dad or your brother/ sister to teach or you can do reading at
home too. What page had you been reading?
803. So: Back to the lesson you gave them this morning, that you said used right hand
and left hand right? For the beginning you asked them to use right or left hand?
Why did you ask that?
804. T: Once there was children put their left hand when I asked them which one were
your right hand.
805. So: I see,,
806. T: Now put your right hand up, but the left one that they did. Then I asked when
you had meal which hand do you use? Yang makan pakai tangan kiri. So… I
asked them like that everyday to make them get used to. ..that right hand is for
428
eating and the left hand is for wipe the bottom. Kalau ada yang makan pakai
tangan kiri.
807. So: O I see…those to make the children became more understand.
140:01-145:00 808. T: Yes…in order to make them later getting more used to hear that right hand is for
eating, left hand is for wiping the bottom. When you used your right hand to
wipe the bottom, they’re all laughing. Eating, wiping the bottom, later on they
will be….
809. So: I see…how long did it take, in the first week, they.
810. T: Yes…every morning at school, everydaylah!
811. So: Why did you ask them like that? What for did you ask that questions?
812. T: To make them understand which hand do they use for eating, right hand or left
hand?
813. So: Is there any children who don’t know yet when they first time at school?
814. T: There were some who understand and some didn’t know yet. It was that they
used right hand for eating at home, but when they’d been asked which one is
right hand, then they put their left hand.
815. So: Oo…I see.
816. T: When they’d been asked to eat, there were some holding the right hand. There
were children eating using the left hand. The left hand is not for eating. They
have to write using the right hand to make their writing look better and neat.
817. So: What about the left handed children, did you know about it?
818. T: There were…
819. So: were There …
820. T: There was a child utter ‘R’-not clear.
821. So: Ee…that’s kidal suara. Do you have a child kidal suara ya
822. T: No I don’t
823. So: Eemm R, L
824. T: the R, there was one (the teacher demonstrated) like that. The R is not clear.
825. So: I see...just now you said that right hand and left hand. The children must use
their right hand to write, you said like that didn’t you? Were there any children
difficult using their right hand to write?
826. T: No, there were not. Used to be any copy cat (dulu itu memang ada yang tiru).
So I taught them to use their right hand, biasa lama-lama kan bisa. The one
who get used to use their left hand, I remind them to use the right hand over
and over again, until they get used to it.
827. So: I see…Why don’t you let go?
828. T: The one who don’t want to do it, then I let them to go.
829. So: Okay,,
830. T: Yes you may use the left hand. They wrote using the left hand, but when they
were eating they get used to use the right hand. In here we usually using right
429
hand for eating. Using left hand for eating is not nice. When you want to give
something to others please use the right hand. When you use the left hand for
giving things that’s not nice (polite). That’s the way of people here judge.
831. So: Yes, this morning you asked about bathing, were there any children who didn’t
take a bath too.
832. T: None, in general, all children had taken a bath except the one whose being sick.
Ibu tadi melem karena panas, maka Cuma di lap-lap. Kalau mandi, mandi
semua. Last night I got fever so I just got been washed….:(
833. So: You said drinking sweet tea right?
834. T: Yes, people in here were love to have sweet tea.
835. So: Had some sweet tea with fried banana. Then you start with Math lesson and
doing subtraction activities. What do you think about the children when you
said about number subtraction activities?
836. T: To subtract 1 number with another number.
837. So: You used the language of bilangan (numeral) is what numeral is. Was it not too
abstract for the children?
145:01-150:00 838. T: Too abstract. To subtract numeral 1 untill 5 like that.
839. So: No, I just would to like to confirm it with you, I don’t want to have a willing to
change it.
840. T: To subtract number 1 until 5 I meant.
841. So: You just said like that. Then I want to connect it with the previous topic about
left hand and right hand. What were you teaching actually?
842. T: (silent-no answer)
843. So: eating hand, wiper bottom hand.
844. T: There are many things about that, how many fingers on the right hand.
845. So: Yes, the amount of its fingers.
846. T: The amount of both right and left hand. There are 5 fingers on the left and the
children learnt counting 1 until 5, using their fingers first, right?
847. So: Yes, Exactly. But what I meant was about the numeral. The word numeral-what
the children had been knowing about it. When you said numeral, what does it
mean?
848. T: The number sign is the numeral, right?
849. So: Yes…or you may said it and not being bother whether the children understand
or not, the main thing is only the number sign, isn’t it?
850. T: Yes…the numeral 1 until 5. The numeral I meant was the number sign of
numeral 1 until 5.
851. So: That’s why I asked you. Do you have different method to teach the number
concept.
852. T: To write numeral 1 or number 1.
853. So: Yes…no problem-no problem
430
854. T: Number 1 until 5 you mean?
855. So: What do you think about this statement, will the children easily understood by
saying this, now we are learning number 1 until 5 compare to this statement-
Children we’re going to learn about numeral.
856. T: We wrote numeral 1
857. So: I mean only the wordings, because the word had connection with the way
people thought. The word is similar the thought. Will children be quicker to
understand the word number or numeral.
858. T: I think, when the word number and numeral- the word number is the quicker.
859. So: The number was it?
860. T: Yes
861. So: I heard you often said, do you want to pass the grade or not. Right?
862. T: Yes
863. So: Why did you say that?
864. T: I mean, that when the children want to pass the grade, they must learn nicely.
865. So: It means that learning for pass the grade right?
866. T: Yes,,
867. So: Not for other things?
868. T: It is for other things also. I meant for encouraging the children. To make them
getting more enthusiasm.
869. So: For other things also-what was that? For example to learn subtraction
numbers.
870. T: To make them know counting.
871. So: To make them clever. When they had been able to count then what? I just
want to ask whether the children often hearing , why do we do things-what is
the reason. And I heard that to pass the grade-so it was for an encouragement
you mean?
872. T: But that’s to make them become diligent in learning. Lah.
873. So: According to you, How to use the encouragement by saying the truth what
learning is for, which one is more beneficial for the children.
874. T: Ee…In here, when we didn’t say like that-the children will be suka-suka saja.
When we didn’t say about that or maybe its been a common habit.
875. So: Where is it from – the common habit?
876. T: It used to say that when the children did not pass the grade they don’t know
reading and writing. When the children are clever and continued to study and
wanting to know the reading, they must learn first to pass the grade.
877. So: So the common habit is from the school, isn’t it? There were being at home,
don’t they,,
150:01-155:00 878. T: Oo noo..the parents here thought because the children didn’t learn so they will
not pass the grade. When the mom asked the children to do the homework and
431
the children not wanting to do it, its mean the one who don’t want to learn they
were not succeeded yet. They cannot enter year 2 yet.
879. So: Yes, Where did the parents hear from by saying like that?
880. T: They made by themselves I think (while laughing). The children were not
succeed because they were less learning. Even though the children learnt at
school but when they didn’t do it again at home-it will be the same.
881. So: I see,, bukan, I just interested to dig more about the encouragement that you
often said that learning is for passing the grade. You said that only for
encouraging them to learn right?
882. T: Yes…when it was for the children.
883. So: In your opinion that’s for encouraging right? Because when you didn’t say that,
you may thought the children will learn suka-suka right? So I want to dig more
deeper about that common habit here. Did the parents say the same thing or
not?
884. T: When sometime I met the parents on the way, they told about their children
who are not willing to learn, then the sisters insisted them by hitting so did the
parents. I said to parents don’ t hit the children, when the parents was at school
too. Later, when the children didn’t want to learn at school, when the teacher
had been written at school, the children should did it again at home. When the
children didn’t do it again as they told by the teacher they will not pass the
grade. The children must know first to make them passing the grade. That’s the
encouragement. Who likes to learn they must be succeed and able to pass the
grade.
885. So: So yes…ee, did you ever say when the children learning subtraction, it is to
make them understand counting right?
886. T: Yes counting.
887. So: Which one you said more often to pass the grade or to make them understand
counting. When they understand counting, later they will not,,
888. T: If they did not know counting, writing, reading-these 3 things in year 1 they will
not pass the grade. I said about them more often to the children.
889. So: Yes,,
890. T: Yes they must be diligent in reading, counting at home. Sitting down when
eating, for example there were Mama, kakak, adik were eating how many plate
did they used. They learnt counting. How many spoon were there and the big
plate, the small plate for instance. They can learn from that activities right?
891. So: You said also that you talked to the children that they can tell a story or
learning, right?
892. T: Yes, they liked to tell story.
893. So: Yes, what does tell story mean?
894. T: Tell story mean they will make noise and like to talk by themselves (they didn’t
listen and pay attention to teacher) like that. So I asked them which one they
432
prefer to do-the learning or the telling story. They responded that they want to
learn. It meant that the children must sit nicely. Hand cross on the table and
listen, that’s it! When they want to tell story, they will talk by themselves.
895. So: When its learning the must sit nicely, I see, listen please, listen and quiet, when
its story time the children talked, right?
896. T: Yes
897. So: When it’s a story time the children will talk much, that’s they supposed to do
right?
898. T: It supposed to be like that, however its became too noisy.
899. So: Too much noise and talking.
900. T: Not me telling story. When they first coming the children will wekkkk(the
teacher gave some example when the children were noisy). Then I ask them
which one do you prefer? Telling a story or learning. I said that to the children.
901. So: To make the children?
902. T: O yes, to make them sit down quietly and listen to me and learning.
903. So: It means that learning is quiet and calm
155:01-160:00 904. T: It is not, what I want is the children should listen first, after that up to them to
do whatever they like. The idea is that to make the children understand the
lesson from me first. However when I started to explain, when the children
thought about telling story-stop! Listen to teacher first! Would you like to listen
to teacher or tell a story. Oo,, listen to teacher. Then please sit down nicely,
listen to me, and pay attention to teacher who will explain in the front of the
class.
905. So: Is this when you explain things right?
906. T: Yes, when I explained the children sat. After that they may ask and answer some
questions, it will be noisy. They were all too much noise when there were asking
and answering activities. 2 took away 1 how many left-for instance on that time
was too much noise.
907. So: Maybe we will continue later ya bu.
908. T: Yes, later not long we can do it at home.
909. So: Okay-thank you very much.